Israel votes to expel Arafat. Would this make him more powerful?

Great Debates
41

First of all, thank you for the corrections. I appreciate them. It’s always good to learn something new, even though I should have known it already.

Second, can we at least attempt to keep this friendly? I notice a bit of acrimony here. I’m a bit of a hardliner here, I know, but geez, guys.

OK. Now onto some substance.

Iraq: I’m not really interested in getting into the nuts and bolts of the war, or its justification. I’d just like to point out an indisputable fact: the US will be in that country for a considerable period of time. They are responsible for formation of a new government. They are responsible for rebuilding the infrastructure. They are also responsible for security. As there has been no timetable for US withdrawal, it is a fact that we will be “owning” Iraq for a long time. This is the case, no matter what international law you pull out and show me. We own Iraq until we give it back. Hopefully that will be sooner rather than later, but for now it’s ours.

As far as Israel owning the West Bank and the Gaza Strip: it is no different from the US maintaining possession of Japan, a portion of Germany, and the Pacific islands after World War II. There is ample historical precedent to demonstrate that the winners get the spoils. I, personally, think Israel is in the right here. I think the UN was wrong, and I think that they continue to be wrong.

As far as the settlements: I agree they should be withdrawn if Israel sincerely intends to give the land to the Palestinians. That is something that was agreed to, and the withdrawal was actually in progress before the most recent attacks.

I am, in fact, oversimplifying the situation. But you know what? The root causes of this whole thing are very simple. Israel was placed, perhaps wrongly, where it is, and the surrounding Muslim countries didn’t like that and set out to destroy it. They lost. Israel is there to stay, and there is still no acceptance of that fact by most of their neighbors. That’s it, in a nutshell. You can make it as complicated as you like, but that’s the story. The story of a people who were placed in a bad situation and made the best of it, despite the fact that all of their neighbors wanted them dead. I can’t help but to support Israel, because they got a raw deal from the get-go and are still getting one from the world.

All they want is a place where Jews can live together without getting slaughtered. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. The Palestinians want the same thing, I guess. Well, for that to happen, the killings must stop, and since Israel’s attacks have been retaliatory rather than nakedly aggressive, the root cause of that retaliation must be addressed first. Stop the bombings, Arafat, and you’ll have your home. If that’s what you really want.

42

Fair 'nuff.

Look, there’s a world of difference between ownership and custodianship. Owning means you can do what you will with something, custodianship means you better take care of something that is not rightfully yours until the proper owner takes it.

No way, no how does the US own Iraq or Israel own the disputed territories. We are not free to do with Iraq as we please, nor is Israel free to do as it may please, to those lands, because of both legal and, in the minds of many, moral imperatives.

One could hardly call one’s self a good (little d) democrat and argue that one country’s dominion over prizes from battle somehow trumps the whole tide of history in national self-determination.

And that last quoted comment is a bare assertion, if you’re keeping score on the logical fallacies at home.

Again, you may see it as splitting hairs, but the difference is vitally important here. We ran Germany and Japan for a while, but we didn’t own them.

That’s fine, so long as you don’t blame a faceless organization for Resolution 242. You’re indicting a decades long commitment to a particular policy that has been shared by just about every country in the world (to one degree or another), including Israel, and excepting only Syria, if memory serves.

Talk about beauty in the eye of the beholder. I abhor suicide bombings, but extrajudicial executions are acts better left to tyrants and autocrats. When governments are even suspected, rightly or wrongly, of carrying out targeted killings of people it opposes, “the people” get outraged. Hell, look at Waco and how many Americans suddenly grew an affinity for militias.

Does the policy of assasinations justify Palestinian terrorism? No. Does it justify Palestinian anger? Absolutely.

There’s no military solution to this problem out there, whether it is even more violence or a general cease-fire. Bombs aren’t the problem, land is.

43

Sure there is a military solution. You wipe out the Bad guys, which is all of the terrorist groups, who repeatedly state that they are against peace. Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. If Israel would be allowed to act without wearing silk gloves, then this could be acheived fairly quickly, I would presume.

And land is not the problem, because it was certainly not the problem before, when Israel wasn’t in control of these areas then. The only land problem I could see it that many Palestinians want the whole of Israel, which they obviously will never get. Somebody might need to stock up on fresh virgins, if they keep enacting out this scenario.

Israel defended itself against hostile neighbors and came into posession of the disputed territories. Too bad for the people who got occupied, it was not Israels fault. Blame the aggresors.

The problem is this:
1948 Israels enemies call for the destruction of Israel and act on this.
2003 Israels enemies call for the destruction of Israel and act on this.

Not much has changed really. The enemies have merely switched tactics, since they realize that they are inferior military wise, even though they had superior military weapons and manpower in previous wars. Now, they just go and strap some bombs around their stomachs, and continue to murder jews, which makes them happy for a few moments, while they dance around the street and pass out candies.

I would think it is fairly naive to think that a non military solution would apply in this case.

One of these two things will happen I suppose:

(1) Israeal achieves it’s goal of wiping out the hamas leadership and various terrorists, which it has vowed.

(2) Hamas and their terrorist buddies achieve their goal of running the Jews into the sea, which they have vowed.

Now, the second solution seems highly unrealistic to me, so therefore we are left with the first solution, which sounds like a good one indeed.

This conflict is fairly simple, when one looks at the greater picture, Israel is correct, and the Palestinians are wrong, ihmo.

44

Fair points.
But please do remember that people are dying almost daily in this conflict, which has been going for decades (plus the historical + religious connotations go back thousands of years).
To hear you say ‘this will solve the conflict overnight’ is very naive and insensitive. Have a look at various previous cease-fire attempts (Norwegian negotiations, Camp David, UN resolutions etc.) Find out why Jerusalem is a religious hot potato.

I don’t think you have thought how bad this sounds.
The UK joined the US in the Iraq invasion mainly because we were told Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ready for immediate use.
The US public were led to believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
There were attempts to get legal backing from the UN, but eventually these were abandoned.
Now you say that the US will be in Iraq for a long time. They are ‘responsible’ for forming a new Government. Well this could be benign - but it could also be sinister. Suppose Bush will only accept a pro-US Iraq Government that awards all the oil contracts to the US. Does that worry you? Suppose the US stay for 10 years. Does that worry you?
As for you ignoring international law, you are saying to the rest of the World “The US has the best weapons. We have the right to invade anywhere we like, and you can’t do anything about it. It doesn’t matter if we have no justification, because we ignore international law.” Do you think it will be easier to whip up anti-US feelings with this US attitude?

45

Are you a member of a Bush think-tank? :rolleyes:
Why on earth didn’t we use your solution in Northern Ireland?
Or any other terrorist / freedom fighter situation.
Nuke 'em!

You can presume all you like. But where is your evidence? Where is your historical precedent? Do please show how any terrorist group has been ‘wiped out’ by a Government.
And I ‘admire’ your gall in saying Israel has used ‘silk gloves’. Although I realise Israel faces a desperately difficult situation, even Israeli friends of mine are shocked by:

  • the attacks on refugee camps
  • blowing up an apartment building to kill a terrorist
  • shooting stone throwers

‘Came into possession’ is a euphemism, right?
‘Too bad for the people who got occupied’ - ah, so if your land is taken you have no right to reclaim it?

Complete WW2 history by Daisy Cutter:

1944 Germany’s enemies call for an invasion and act on it
1945 The US calls for the destruction of Hiroshima and acts on it

46

I don’t need to say anything to foment peoples’ opinions about the Ugly Americans. They decided that a long time ago. And I feel like we’re arguing apples and oranges, or actually whether something is “brown” or “burnt sienna”. My contention is that it is a fact that we own Iraq for the time being, and your contention is that it’s illegal for us to own Iraq. If you like, I can restate that to “control Iraqi territory for an indefinite and potentially infinite amount of time”, if that will satisfy your legal requirements, but it doesn’t change the substance of it in any way. Hopefully that will end the apples-oranges discussion.

You said that what I am saying is naive. Maybe it is. However, it’s no less naive than thinking that we can ever make peace in the region at all. I’d like to see peace there, and what I’ve said is what I see as the major obstacles to that peace. All the rest can be worked through, but the killings have to stop. Everything has to start with a single step, that’s the first step. If that’s being naive, then I’ll be this naive forever.

47

I think a lot of you are forgetting the 2002 Saudi-led Arab League proposal that offered Israel full state recognition from all Arab nations in return to withdrawal to 1967 borders, without demanding the right of return. It was ignored by the Israeli government.

48

Well, Egypt did blockade the Straits of Tiran before any Israeli troop movement, Syria was doing some pretty constant shelling of Israeli positions within Israel, and Egyptian and Syrian troops were massed on the border. Blockades and artillery bombardments are pretty generally considered acts of war.

49

And the idea that the majority of Palestinians wants peace is a myth:

This is from a very recent poll:

An overwhelming 88.8 percent opposed curbing terrorism by detaining those Palestinians responsible for the violence. Nearly 80 percent were against the PA’s recent decision to freeze contacts with Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

They obviously want all out war, I hope Israel gives it to them soon. Nobody will be able to complain, since this is what the majority of them want.

They can’t have it both ways. Either you want war or you want peace. They obviously want war, so talking peace is a waste of time. Give them war.

50

Thanks for putting words into my mouth. :smack:

I haven’t mentioned anything about WW2 in this thread.

51

Israel does not need recognition by the Arab league. Most of its neighbors (most notably not inbcluding Syria) have already recognized it, and Israel de facto exists already. This amounts to offering nothing. What you don’t mention is that the Palestinians have nothing to do with the proposal and don’t acept it. In which case it is obviously a pathetic and pointless diplomatic game.

Wow. I love you magical knowledge. Where do I find this Book Of Made Up Statistics?

The hell it isn’t the major sticking point. Under barak (or wa it Natanyahu? I forget) Arafat was offered a full withdrawal, but not the Right o’ Return. That was the sole reaosn it was turned down.

I don’t believe that site is fair or unbiased in its assessment. Regardles, there have been a huge number of cites in this topic before, and a few more won’t change anyone’s mind.

They do deserve death. And, you know what? I wouldn’t give it to them. They have repeatedly asked for it and put their faith in the vilest scum of the earth. They have gone to war against a society of decent people and attacked pizerias and discos, because they are far too pathetic to do anything but snipe at and chuck rocks are soldiers. No, I have no pity, but I have mercy. I wouldn’t kill them, though they deserve it, and Israel won’t either.

You are a deluded fool, who continues to project images of innocent victimhood upon a pople who repeatedly have thrown themselves into the outhouse of existence to spite their enemies.

There’s nothign inherently wrong with them, which is why its even worse than if they actually were and inferior race: they’ve done this to themselves, deliberately. For some things, there can be no excuse, only justice and mercy.

52

No acrimony intended, but while there are points of comparison to the post WWII occupation of Germany and Japan, there are also vast differences. The Allies administered the defeated Axis powers while their constitutions were rewritten, they were demilitarized and de-Nazified and then they ran themselves, a process that happened in a fairly quick manner. The occupied territories, on the other hand, have been in legal limbo for 36 years.

Bolding in the above is mine. That was the case until the 1970s, but it isn’t that way anymore. Egypt, always the most powerful and dangerous of Israel’s neighbors has signed peace with Israel. It hasn’t threatened Israel or acted in an aggressive manner towards Israel since then and accepts Israel’s right to exist. Jordan has as well. Today both of these countries get a good chunk of their military hardware from the US, in fact. The only neighbor that still hasn’t completely accepted this is Syria. The PLO itself removed the destruction of Israel as a goal back in the 80s.

While I agree that the onus is more on the Palestinians to get their act together than it is on Israel, the Israelis have work to do themselves.

53

smiling bandit, I am utterly disgusted by your comments.

54

Dissonance:

Just to be nitpicky, neither has Lebanon. I know that Lebanon is practically a puppet state of Syria at this time, but until that fact is somehow internationally recognized, it would take two statements of recognition to make Israel’s neighbors unanimous in their acceptance of it, not one.

55

Not only will Arafat grow more powerful than you can know if he is expelled, but if Israel kills him he will collapse into a big pile of clothing, which will appear to be completely empty, even if you poke it with a stick.

56

smiling jjimm, I am utterly disgusted by your comment.

57

Very difficult to overcome such ingrained conditioned thinking. Unless, of course, Bush says the sky is green, then, hey, the sky is green.

58

Actually some of the 6 billion people on this planet make up our minds using facts and observations rather than use ignorance.
So when I say that Bush disappoints me over Guantanamo Bay or invading Iraq, I mean that the fine US traditions of freedom and fair chance of prosperity are vitally important, and that a greedy oilman is spoiling the US reputation.

Well my ‘apples’ are human rights and international law, while your ‘oranges’ are having the biggest army.
If you don’t think human rights and the rule of law are important, I can only hope you don’t ever live in a dictatorship.

Yes, I appreciate that you and I both want peace.
And stopping the killings would be excellent.
But you ignore the historical resentment and killings on both sides.
I notice that Israel is considering exiling or killing Arafat.
Do you think that will calm the situation?
Do you think they have the legal right to do so?

59

Oh dear.
Yes, I am well aware that you have not mentioned WW2. Given your ignorance of the history of the Middle East, I was nervous about mentioning anything historical.
However I thought I would use sarcasm (you do know what that is, don’t you? :rolleyes: ) to show you how biased your statement was …

Well there we have it. A ‘complete summary’ of the entire conflict.
According to you, there was no reason at all for anyone to attack Israel. No displaced Palestinians, no historical or religious background. Just a bunch of violent Arabs with no motivation.

So I posted an equally ludicrous ‘summary’ of WW2.
Apparently, using your methods, the US destroyed Hiroshima for no reason at all.

(If you can’t see how this works, ask your teacher to explain it to you.)

60

Well, maybe you’re right, in that he does oh-so-magnanimously “deny” the genocide that 3 million people “deserve”.

:rolleyes: