If Israel Kills Arafat, What Next?

Great Debates
161

adaher

So are you saying that Israel’s persistent human-rights abuses are justified because of Palestinian attacks? By your logic, I could just as easily say that the suicide bombings were justified because of Israel’s behaviour.

Sorry, but Israel has no right to claim moral superiority here.

And how on earth can you assert that the international community 9by which I asume you mean the UN) has tried to “prevent solutions”. They’ve been begging Israel to abide by International Law for decades, but israel just doesn’t give a shit about legitimacy, justice, human rights, or anything else in finds inconvenient.

162

Yup, just like they were to Ferdinand Marcos. I find an awful lot of parallels between these two maggots. They both seem to have (in Marcos’ case, “had”) a nasty habit of drinking their peoples’ blood.

Bibliovore, would you be so kind as to compile a similar list of UN resolutions condemning Palestinian terrorism? I’m extremely curious about how significant a stance they have taken on Palestine’s continued intifada. This is a sincere request and not just argument.

163

**That is very comfortable for Israel: “homeland security” allows them to treat another people as they want, removing their liberty and treating them as things.

Furthermore I don’t even get the argument: how does the fact that Israel ends the occupation change anything? The frontier patrols and control will stay in place anyway.
**

The effects would be the same. When the West Bank was part of Jordan, Israel staged the kinds of raids they stage today in response to terror attacks. The only difference is that now they can stay. Before they had to hit and then get out of Dodge. Giving up the West Bank before the terrorism stops will only result in perpetual war between the two states.

You did hear of settlements in the occupied territories, did you? Search a map, they are all over the place.

With a small number of Jews, fewer than occupied the West Bank prior to 1948, as I said. Secondly, the Geneva Convention only bars the forcible moving of citizens in or out. The Jews living there are doing so voluntarily, and are doing it in uninhabited areas. Palestinians are not being moved out to make room for Jews, Jews are being added to the population.

So, adaher, how is this not “changing the demographic or geographic nature of the areas falling under occupation by the occupying power.”?

They are simply restoring the pre-1948 demographics.

Why do you not object to the Arabs changing the demographics of the regions they occupy? Why is this only a problem now that Jews are doing it?

**So are you saying that Israel’s persistent human-rights abuses are justified because of Palestinian attacks? By your logic, I could just as easily say that the suicide bombings were justified because of Israel’s behaviour.
**

I don’t care much for the justification of either method. Just suffice to say it’s a war and both sides are using whatever tactics they can to win. I am less concerned with the tactics used in this war than how to end it.

**Sorry, but Israel has no right to claim moral superiority here.

**

Not in tactics, I’ll grant that. But in the overall commitment to peace, Israel has demonstrated it’s commitment. The Palestinians never have, not even once. They have never stopped terrorism, never kept an agreement. Israel has sucessfully negotiated peace with two former enemies. THe problem is not on their end. Sure, you can cite things they do which are unhelpful, like settlements and raids, but those are not major impediments to peace. THey didn’t stop Egypt from making peace. Those are excuses. To make peace, first you stop fighting. Then you negotitate over things like settlements, sovereignty, borders, etc. The Palestinians refuse to take that first step. They want it all right away.

**Bibliovore, would you be so kind as to compile a similar list of UN resolutions condemning Palestinian terrorism? **

Most of them do, it’s just that those who are against Israel don’t notice or care, and those who have disdain for the UN don’t pay close enough attention to them to know.

164

Well, that is very comfortable for Israel. Lets just keep them occupied and boil them on a small flame. Israel “doesn’t have another chance anyway”. Unfortunately it is against the law. Either annexe them and give them equal rights or get out.

voluntarily perhaps, but if you read the link above then you will see that it’s Israeli politics to move them there. And that is against the Geneva convention. As you said yourself “Jews are being added to the population.”

Care for a cite?

If Arabs are doing it, then I will object. Unlike Israel I don’t care for double morality. I am against the suicide attacks

How?

Settlements and raids are not major impediments to peace? I think it’s not even worth discussing that.

165

Talking about impediments to peace, Israel is not a big fan of trials and proper justice. Missiles may be fired against at palestinean houses and refugee camps at will.

cite

166

**Well, that is very comfortable for Israel. Lets just keep them occupied and boil them on a small flame. Israel “doesn’t have another chance anyway”. Unfortunately it is against the law. Either annexe them and give them equal rights or get out.
**

It;s not comfortable for Israel. You think Israel wants the status quo? Israel is torn between different factions. Some want to annex the West Bank and drive the Palestinians out. Some want peace at any price. The moderates want the terror to stop and then they can move forward on a two-state solution.

**voluntarily perhaps, but if you read the link above then you will see that it’s Israeli politics to move them there. And that is against the Geneva convention. As you said yourself “Jews are being added to the population.”
**

Oh the horror. Subjecting those tolerant Arabs to Jews as neighbors. There goes the neighborhood.

**Care for a cite?
**

Here’s one, Hebron specifically. There were 800 Jews in Hebron in 1948, there are only 500 now. None between 1948-1967. So in Hebron they haven’t even finished restoring the Jewish population.

http://www.tomhull.com/ocston/projects/ajvp/wp1.php

In 1912 there were over 40,000 Jews living in the Jerusalem/Nablus/Acre area alone.

I’ll try to find one comprehensive link.

**If Arabs are doing it, then I will object. Unlike Israel I don’t care for double morality. I am against the suicide attacks
**

They already did it. 800,000 Jews were forced out of the Arab states and their property confiscated.

How?

Under Oslo, they pulled out of two of the three regions agreed upon, despite no letup in terrorist attacks, which actually increased after they pulled out. They did not start going back in in force until 2000. They waited seven years to respond to consistent terrorism. And I don’t think anyone will deny that Rabin tried his darndest.

**Settlements and raids are not major impediments to peace? I think it’s not even worth discussing that.
**

Didn’t stop Israel from making peace with Egypt.

The Palestinians know darn well that Israel will disband settlements after a peace agreement, just like they did on the Sinai after making peace with Egypt. THe settlements are an excuse, just like I said. And the raids are always in response to a terrorist attack. Stop the terrorism, the raids will stop.

**Talking about impediments to peace, Israel is not a big fan of trials and proper justice. Missiles may be fired against at palestinean houses and refugee camps at will.
**

It’s called a war. This is not a criminal matter.

167

That is an irrevelant argument. We talk about changing demographics. With the same argument we could have said “Oh the horror. In 1941 the tolerant eastern european peoples shouldn’t have objected to the Germans as neighbors”.

First of all, I need a cite that these jews didn’t leave voluntarily. If they did, there is no moral justification to “replant” the population.

Opinions are split on this one. If it happened like this, I am to the first one to say it’s not justified. However, nobody knows how many of these jews left voluntarily because they wanted to live in Israel.

According to my wife, who is Moroccan, the Moroccan jews were not forced to leave. Furthermore, they were pretty well integrated into the muslim country. They left voluntarily. Btw, the ones which are still there are mostly against Israel’s politics and favor the “palestinean cause”.

Anyway, if the tolerant Arabs shouldn’t object to the jews living in the “unpopulated” areas, why Israels refusal to let the refugees return?

Yes, Rabin was a fine man. But even he failed on the subject of refugees.

Just because Egypt accepted it doesn’t mean that Israel had the right to impose it. That’s like saying a mugging is justified because the weaker victim accepts his “peace terms”.

No, I don’t think they know and I don’t think they will be dismantled. Israel’s politics targets permanent settlements, as e.g. the adaptation of the path of the wall suggests.

Furthermore, I can’t get your argument. If you say that the settlements are justified and that the are no impediment to peace, why do you need to say that they will be dismantled after a peace agreement?

Finally, what is the point of the settlements anyway, if they are dismantled after a peace agreement. Why favoring them with a clear politics?

That is too easy. Israel cannot stay in a state of war for 50 years, oppressing a people and killing its people whenever it wants referring to war. At some point it needs to decide, does it want to win the war or not? There is no palestinean army.

If you call this a war (which I don’t), then you could say that the suicide bombers are freedom fighters defending their country.

168

**First of all, I need a cite that these jews didn’t leave voluntarily. If they did, there is no moral justification to “replant” the population.
**

Semi-voluntary, just as the Arabs after 1948. I take it you are not in favor of the right of return for either party? That’s a defensible position I guess.

**Yes, Rabin was a fine man. But even he failed on the subject of refugees.
**

What’s he supposed to do? Israel settled its refugees, why can’t the Arabs, with far more resources and land?

**Just because Egypt accepted it doesn’t mean that Israel had the right to impose it. That’s like saying a mugging is justified because the weaker victim accepts his “peace terms”.
**

What are you talking about? Egypt got everything back in exchange for promises,which to their credit they’ve kept. ISrael is one of the few victors in world history to give up most of what they’ve won. Do you think the Arabs would ever have been generous to Israel if they had won? Would any Jews even be alive?

**No, I don’t think they know and I don’t think they will be dismantled. Israel’s politics targets permanent settlements, as e.g. the adaptation of the path of the wall suggests.
**

Some will be, even Arafat has conceded that a final settlement will recognize many of the settlements. But most will be dismantled, or the Jews will have to live under PA rule.

Furthermore, I can’t get your argument. If you say that the settlements are justified and that the are no impediment to peace, why do you need to say that they will be dismantled after a peace agreement?

Because that’s probably something the Palestinians will want. I don’t think there is anything wrong with them, but they are negotiable. So it’s ridiculous for the Palestinians to use them as an excuse to not negotiate seriously. Israel has demonstrated willingness to disband them if a peace agreement calls for it. Obviously, Israel will do their darndest to keep as much as possible. That’s a negotiating stance.

**Finally, what is the point of the settlements anyway, if they are dismantled after a peace agreement. Why favoring them with a clear politics?

**

Mainly, it’s to allow Jews to go back to their homes. It’s also for domestic political considerations. Sharon can sell dismantlement if it’s part of a real peace agreement. He can’t sell that to voters in exchange for nothing.

**That is too easy. Israel cannot stay in a state of war for 50 years, oppressing a people and killing its people whenever it wants referring to war. At some point it needs to decide, does it want to win the war or not? There is no palestinean army.
**

Hamas may disagree with you there. And Israel has been in a state of war since its existance began. That’s just an unfortunate fact. The Israelis didn’t ask for any war, they accepted the UN resolution establishing Israel. The first blow was struck by the Arabs and it hasn’t stopped since.

If you call this a war (which I don’t), then you could say that the suicide bombers are freedom fighters defending their country.

You could say the attacks on IDF soldiers are military acts(I refuse to call them freedom fighters because they aren’t fighting for freedom. That’s kinda a prerequisite to earn that label). But attacks on soft targets, especially when you intentionally evade combat with soldiers to hit them is terrorism.

Real freedom fighters hit military targets. And I’m sure there are some small Palestinian militias limiting their attacks to such targets and not getting much attention from the media.

Now obviously I’m not suggesting the Palestinians form up in ranks and march on Jerusalem. They’d get slaughtered. But I’d have more sympathy if they were fighting a true guerilla war against the IDF. They are not. This is a terrorist campaign. You can’t call them underdogs if they are attacking the helpless.

Although Palestinian deaths outnumber Israeli deaths by a margin of over 3-1, more Israeli women, children under 12, and elderly have been killed than Palestinian. 90% of Palestinian deaths are males over 13 and younger than 40. In other words, men of fighting age.

It’s obvious that one side is purposely avoiding combatants to hit civilians here, while the other is trying to hit only combatants.

169

Adaher, I’ve noticed an alarming tendency in your posts to make facts up to suit your worldview for example in terms of percentyages, the numbers of under 12’s killed is about 21% of the deaths for Israelis and 19% for the Palestinians, also there is a higher percentage of elderly and disabled killed by the Israelis than vice versa.

In the past moist Palestinian attacks were Guerillia attacks, during the first intifada most of the action took the form of civil disobediance, but this was just as ruthlessly crushed by the Israelis resuling in a detah toll of about 50:2000.

Also the Israelis accptyed the UN resolution carving the state up they most certainly did not accept the territorial divison in that resolution.

‘semi voluntary’??? they fled or were expelled it is clear that the should receive some restituion for this.

Please stop making crap up whenever it suits you, I’ve noticed you do this often in areas where people might not be aware for example your claim about East jeruslame being majority Jewish before 1948, looking at a historical atlas renders thta claim laughable.

170

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=439

For the casualties.

**n the past moist Palestinian attacks were Guerillia attacks, during the first intifada most of the action took the form of civil disobediance, but this was just as ruthlessly crushed by the Israelis resuling in a detah toll of about 50:2000.
**

By “in the past” I’m not sure what period you are referring to. The Palestinians have always utilized terrorism more than they’ve utilized guerilla warfare. And they didn’t just use it against Israel, but internationally. How anyone can legitimize their cause after that I don’t get.

**‘semi voluntary’??? they fled or were expelled it is clear that the should receive some restituion for this.
**

Fleeing is a choice. And the Jews should also get restitution then, because they left because of persecution, even if it was voluntary. That’s why I said semi-voluntary. The Arabs were mostly asked to leave by the Arab states in 1948 or fled becuase they were scared of how the Jews would treat them when they won.

**Please stop making crap up whenever it suits you, I’ve noticed you do this often in areas where people might not be aware for example your claim about East jeruslame being majority Jewish before 1948, looking at a historical atlas renders thta claim laughable.
**

I acknowledged the error when it was pointed out to me.

171

Those casulaties are inaccurate, alarm bells should be ringing when you see the way they have divided up the lists.

B’Tselem has detailed and more accurate casualty lists:

http://www.btselem.org/

172

I don’t see how any of that contradicts either my cite or what I said.

Could you point me to the discrepancies?

173

I should add a couple of things: 13 is not a fighting age and it certainly is not considered such by the Palestinians, though I have heard that the Israeli army consider everybody age 13 and above as adults and legitmate targets.

The numbers of under 13’s killed (details correct until the start of August) are 30 Israelis to 83 Palestinians whichabout the same as the ratio of overall dead, showing that the Israeli army sem to have just about the same amount of targetting as the suicide bombers.

174

I should add a couple of things: 13 is not a fighting age and it certainly is not considered such by the Palestinians, though I have heard that the Israeli army consider everybody age 13 and above as adults and legitmate targets

Although few suicide bombers are under 18, attacks with rifles on Israeli settlers or soldiers has been done by boys under 18.

But I’ll concede the point to an extent. Obviously there is no way to know how many were actual fighters unless we take Israeli claims at face value, something even I am not prepared to do.

**The numbers of under 13’s killed (details correct until the start of August) are 30 Israelis to 83 Palestinians whichabout the same as the ratio of overall dead, showing that the Israeli army sem to have just about the same amount of targetting as the suicide bombers.
**

Two errors here:

  1. Comparing the IDF to the suicide bombers is erroneus because suicide bombers produce a higher ratio of civilian casualties than Palestinian guerillas attacking IDF troops. You could make that case for the overall Palestinian effort vs. the Israeli effort.
  2. Even if I concede your point about children, more Israeli women are dead than Palestinian. If nothing else, the IDF is avoiding hitting women.
175

My own position is, that Israels position is crap, which is basically: Give the “right of return” to jewish settlers, even if they never lived there, but no right of return to the Arab refugees

I meant that he was against the right of return of the Arabs.

You distort the discussion. Your point was, that settlements and raids are no impediment to peace. But the fact the Egypt accepted peace is no prove for that and is no justification.

So, again, why are there settlements if Sharon knows that he has to dismantle them? I don’t follow you. Does he want to create capital he can trade in peace negotiations?

I don’t comment on your numbers, MC already did. Thanks, Btw, since I do not check on adahers figures. Perhaps I should.

Fact is, the balance of power is against the palestineans. The main difference is also, that the palestinean suicide bombers are privates, non-offical, and nobody claims that they are justified.

On the hand we have the “IDF”, which I put into quotes because it does not only defend, which considers civilians as legitimate targets. Cite? Search the news. Unfortunately these events only make it into the news if they hit an American by accident. Palestineans are not important enough to be mentioned in the news.

The majority of the people in the world don’t even know what happens in palestine. That houses and infrastructure are blown up almost randomly. That the IDF destroys buildings and kills people if they try to stop them.

I don’t see any “moral superiority” in here.

Yes, the Arab nations attacked Israel in 1948. I don’t excuse that.

But since then, they did calm down, they had to after several lost wars. Since then, Israel quite took over the situation and for a long time profited from the world’s opinion, which was against the Arabs.

Now, things change. Slowly the world understands how the current situation really is. It’s time that the US also wakes up and changes it’s ME politics.

176

**My own position is, that Israels position is crap, which is basically: Give the “right of return” to jewish settlers, even if they never lived there, but no right of return to the Arab refugees

**

If we are talking about giving right of return only to those people who lived in a certain place, that makes sense. Allow only the Jews kicked out in 1948 to return and only those Arabs kicked out in 1948 to return.

**I meant that he was against the right of return of the Arabs.
**

Which Arabs? The specific Arabs that lived in ISrael prior to 1948? Or all Arabs in general?

**So, again, why are there settlements if Sharon knows that he has to dismantle them? I don’t follow you. Does he want to create capital he can trade in peace negotiations?

**

It’s for domestic purposes. Okay, in Israel, to overgeneralize, you have the right(no peace, annex the Occupied Territories), you have the left(peace at any price), and you have the majority center(desire peace, but fight back against terrorism). One purpose I didn’t mention for settlements is that they make Israel’s border more secure. Palestinians are also drawn to attack the settlements and they are harder targets to attack than Israel proper as far as people being able to defend themselves.

But in any case, until Sharon has a genuine peace agreement, there is simply no way he can sell a dismantling of the settlements to the center. He can only ignore the right if he has the center behind him.

**But since then, they did calm down, they had to after several lost wars. Since then, Israel quite took over the situation and for a long time profited from the world’s opinion, which was against the Arabs.
**

I don’t know about that. Seems that Europe was more favorable to Israel in the past, but as their dependence on oil increased, so did their willingness to excuse terrorism(coincidence?). But the Third World has always been pretty much uniformly anti-Israel, going by General Assembly votes.

Now, things change. Slowly the world understands how the current situation really is. It’s time that the US also wakes up and changes it’s ME politics.

In what way?

177

OK, Noone Special, I’ll come back to you now then.

I regard Palestinian resistance legitimate where it targets:

  1. Israeli military targets anywhere in “Greater Israel” whilst the occupation continues.

  2. Israeli citizens generally where they are resident on occupied lands.

I do not wish it to continue, by the way, I just find it pefectly understandable. To reuse an earlier analogy, it equate it to the East Timorian resistance movements actions against the Indonesian military occupation and the indonesian setters taking over their land.

Adaher, I am glad to see you are back here. Seriously. I still hold the faint hope that the challenges to the actions of your country you are reading here are having some effect on your views. I notice instances in the above exchanges of agreement on some points. All either side in this debate can expect is probably that for now. Keep talking but keep listening…

As to what the US should do when it wakes up and reviews it ME policy (not what it will do, sadly), is to abandon it’s strategic alliance with Israel and try to act as an honest broker. Israeli possession of nuclear weapons and delivery systems for instance should be challenged in just the same way as North Korean and Iranian weapon programmes (if any exists - in the last case) as an example.

The Indonesian East Timor example retains some value there too. It only took the US to pull the plug of their support on the Indonesian occupation (on the basis of TINA, “there is no alternative”) for things to change immediately (BTW I also condemn my own UK governments role in the whole East Timor thing too).

A similar brave break with the US past and current, terribly mistaken, policy is the truest path the a sustainable settlement. It will not happen of course due to the domestic political numbers adding up in the US vis a vis the Zionist lobby.

178

**As to what the US should do when it wakes up and reviews it ME policy (not what it will do, sadly), is to abandon it’s strategic alliance with Israel and try to act as an honest broker. Israeli possession of nuclear weapons and delivery systems for instance should be challenged in just the same way as North Korean and Iranian weapon programmes (if any exists - in the last case) as an example.
**

I disagree with that. The US has never challenged a democracy’s rights to make whatever weapons they please. Not to mention Israel never agreed to the NPT treaty and there is no proof they have WMD. Just thought I’d throw that out there for all those who take the absence of evidence to be evidence of absence in Iraq.

**The Indonesian East Timor example retains some value there too. It only took the US to pull the plug of their support on the Indonesian occupation (on the basis of TINA, “there is no alternative”) for things to change immediately (BTW I also condemn my own UK governments role in the whole East Timor thing too).
**

But then what happens on the Palestinian side? We don’t have leverage. Unilaterally breaking Israel down does nothing for peace if it only emboldens the Palestinians.

**A similar brave break with the US past and current, terribly mistaken, policy is the truest path the a sustainable settlement. It will not happen of course due to the domestic political numbers adding up in the US vis a vis the Zionist lobby.
**

Likewise, the power of oil prevents many nations from viewing the conflict in a balanced fashion. There is a definite pro-Arab bias in most of the world outside the US.

179

Adaher - I may not be understanding your point correctly here, if so please restate in another manner.

  1. We disagree. Do you REALLY want to hold to the position that Israel does not have WMD and delivery capacity? If you are I am afraid you are going to receive a barrage of overwhelmingly contrary evidence from many sources, just as you did on earlier in this thread prior to your going to ground for a few days to recover.

Remember I am asking for even handedness. As far as I recall North Korea has not signed the NPT and yet that does not stop the US bringing them to account.

  1. If the withdrawl of US support means “the unilateral breaking down of Israel”, can I assume you agree that a change of direction in US policy would have the effect of pulling the carpet from under continued Israeli occupation? Not on the pros and cons you understand just the reale politick.

If so I cannot see how that cannot “do nothing for peace”. Unless by “peace” you mean a Palestinian total surrender, and an Israeli victory like that achieved over Egypt (although that in my view also unsustainable as so unpopular with the Egyptian population).

We could turn your statement around and equally hold that “unilaterally breaking down the Palestinian resistance movement would do nothing for peace as it would only embolden the Israeli right and centre. The Palestinians would not have the leverage if they abandoned their armed struggle.”
Surely if it was the power of oil that is skewing the view of the conflict then the US would strongly share the views of the rest of the world?

  1. Your bias is another mans’ obvious truth. We clearly are poles apart here. It is not possible that 250 million Americans are being deluded by religious views and what amounts to thought control of a democratic society by a US media which does not even allow for even handed internal debate. Thank god for areas like the SD.

Unless that is you believe the US have a special vulnerability on the oil supply side that encourages them to keep Israel as the trump card “cop on the block”. If fact the US is slightly better off vis a vis diversity of supply that many G7 nations (e.g. German reliance on Russian supply).

I believe it is rather the powerful zionist lobby in the US that hold them to their historical support of Israel, which after all preceeds the date of dominance of world oil supply by the ME.

180

Adahar,

Further to my previous posting here is a link to mull over for staters in support of the existance of the Israeli WMD programme, and indeed weapons/delivery systems. Note the multiple sources, including the US Strategic Air Command report:

http://communication.ucsd.edu/911/massdestruction.html