I find the Israelis behavior toward arafat bizarre-they see him as the root of all Palestinian evil, yet they haven’t taken the final step. Why not just blast him to bits and be done with it? Instead, we have an endless cycle-suicide bomber kills israleis, Israel retaliates, bombs Arafat’s headquarters, yet doesn’t touch him.
So what should they do-I think they should plan on negotiating with somebody new-just blow up the bum!
Well, a cynic might think that it suits them to have Arafat around. As long as he is recognised as the Palestinian leader, and as long as the accepted wisdom is that it’s impossible to do a deal with him, Israel is under no obligation to try and do a deal with the Palestinians, which I think they would find a very difficult and divisive thing to tackle.
Okay, I get it. Arafat dies, the terrorism ends. Smart, very smart ! Hey, you the same Ralph that used to be in ‘Happy Days’ ? Great show. Loved your shirts !
I’m sure there are a great many Israelis who regret that Arafat wasn’t blown to bits 20 years ago. Taking him out now serves little purpose.
The problem isn’t Arafat. I mean, Arafat’s not helping, but if the Israelis do kill him, not only do they have to worry about international protests, it won’t stop the violence. There are other would be leaders in the PLO more willing to use violence than Arafat is, and then there’s Hamas, which is more violent than the PLO.
Arafat or no Arafat, this whole situation ain’t gonna be solved any time soon. Whatever leader the Palestinians have, he wouldn’t survive unless he stood firm on a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital PLUS the return of Palestinian refugees to their land. As this would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state, it will not happen without force majeure.
So the situation will continue to simmer, while the Arab states build up their armies, and persist in their attempts to acquire a nuclear capability, which Israel, of course, already has.
Figure 10-20 years before Armageddon. Can it be averted? Possibly, if the US uses its muscle to impose a solution on both sides. The only feasible President who would follow such a path is a Republican one (‘Fuck the Jews! They don’t vote for us anyway.’, as one of the Republican grandees so memorably put it). Democrats are completely in thrall to the Jewish lobby.
So will meltdown be averted? I’d like to think so, but I wouldn’t like to put money on it.
I would think if they killed Arafat, that the terrorism would get even worse-people would use it as an excuse.
The last thing you want to do is make a martyr out of the pathetic SOB.
If Israel murders Arafat, why can’t Palestinians murder Israeli leaders?
If you murder Arafat, then later you want to negotiate peace, who are you going to negotiate with? (and will they trust you?)
I am all for Israel taking out Arafat, but I don’t think that doing so will get anything ‘over with’. (Except Arafats life, I suppose.)
Although Arafat is not popular with a number of factions of the Palestinean movement, a man’s fault’s tend to fade when he dies. Every militant group would call for revenge, and no new leader could quell the anger that would sweep through the population.
Violence would increase drastically to constant, open warfare in the streets. The Israeli response would increase the current death toll, and even if every Palestinean they killed was a case of valid self-defense, the numbers would still get so high to cause situations to boil over in other Arab countries. Current moderate governments might fall.
After a few months, it becomes a question of who in the Arab world is willing to contemplate open warfare. Think Saddam would be opposed to firing some chemical-laden SSMs at that point? He’s already facing an almost-guaranteed war.
Farfetched? Maybe. But that’s my view on why the Israelis shouldn’t do it.
Reasons:
- Arafat is a known quantity. Anybody new isn’t. In all likelihood his successor will be more prone to violence than he.
- He may be hard to deal with, but he is the only one recognised by most, if not all, Palestinians.
- He might not be able to contol all the factions, but without him none of the factions can be controlled.
Am I the only one to use the word murder?
Does that mean you would accept the following paraphrase?
“I find the (insert name of your choice) behavior toward Bush bizarre-they see him as the root of all American evil, yet they haven’t taken the final step. Why not just blast him to bits and be done with it? …
So what should they do-I think they should plan on negotiating with somebody new-just blow up the bum!”
If we would blast off everyone that:
- every leader that has guns (dangerous)
- has been elected in a blurry way (suspect, criminal behavour)
- who I or You do not like (a lot of those @ssholes)
- whos picture is everywhere (potential dictator)
- who says “war is for peace” (Big Brother complex)
Well, Arafat would not top that list, but I can not decide who would?
If I put them in alphabethical order?
Have to think about it before I go to any action about it.
Hm?
“War is Peace”, means that “Murder and Assasination is…? Love!”
“Pre-emptive war is” …? “the Final Solution to achieve the Final Peace”?
RIP?
Like Shake wrote: “To RIP or not to RIP? That is the question!”
But what might be the answer?
Sorry.
Where was I?
Oh yes, murder them all!
The last thing the Israelis want to do is give Arafat a martyr’s death.
I’m sure if the Israelis could arrange for a way to him to die of a drug-induced heart attack while being serviced by a trio of male Belgian prostitutes, they’d see to it.
Funny, If I proposed that the Palestinians just assasinate Sharon and get it over with I’d be torn a new asshole.
Carry on.
I think both countries need new leadership.
I also wonder what the Israelis’ think they are doing by just breaking buildings all around Arafat.
Whats the point?
There seems to be a moral code that it’s ‘not done’ to kill the enemy leader. You can slaughter his people by the millions but going for the Big Guy is not playing by the rules.
Arafat is, to a large degree, the Big Guy of the Palestinians. Just shooting him would be uncooth.
Some of us have a moral code that includes not murdering anyone.
What Latro meant - and I think you probably knew this - is that it’s considered acceptable (or at least more acceptable), generally speaking, to go to war with someone, and have your army kill thousands of their soldiers, but it’s not okay to specifically assassinate the leader. For example, during WWII, I can’t imagine any rational person saying that we were not justified in declaring war on Japan after they bombed us. We killed thousands of Japanese over the course of the war, and people were okay with this. However, if we’d sent a ninja over there to take out the Emperor, a lot of people would’ve frowned upon this. Whether it’s logical or not, it’s the way of the world.
Now, if you think that soldiers fighting in a war is always necessarily the same as murder, then I can’t really help you.
Jeff