Divemaster, I’m not sure I agree with your assesment. Arafat may in fact have some goals for near-term peace, but somply does not speak for all Palestinians. He is not in a position to control the actions of people and groups who are teremined to start war, and pull in as many of Israel’s neighbors into it as possible. The idea is simple, has not changed in over 50 years, and for some will not change ever - make the Jewish state go away. This will be a hot spot no matter what agreements are reached with one group.
There is a very delicate balance in place right now, where the type of violence we see nnnow will be left for Israel to handle internally, take all of the critisism from around the world, and with the support of the US and a few other powerful friends, go on to live another day. The events we are seing now are not new in the sence that the same level of violence has ocurred there in the past, and has been handled in similar ways.
Have we seen any real suggestions for stopping this other than more and more land going to Palestinians (which of course they say is rightfully theirs)? None that I remember, someone better informed may be able to point some out. Does anyone see a long term solution with both Israeli and Palestinian states in the same region? Will anyone say that once there is a Palestinian state they will stop pushing for Israels extinction? Seriously?
TO address the OP, these rocket attacks are simply an attempt to show determination, not an attempt to murder civillians (or even military). They are completely successful in achieving that goal. If Israel wanted to intimidate Palestinians through murder, they have much better and easier targets, but I believe this will never happen.
This, in particular, really annoyed me. Because you could inflict more damage triviallizes what’s already been done?
The United States could have done a heck of a lot more to Iraq, should we have chosen to. That doesn’t make the Gulf War not a war (albeit a very lopsided one).
To me, using rockets is the sort of action that seems like it would be a declaration of war anywhere else; why should Israel be excepted from this?
Wow, patent falsehoods…cute :rolleyes:
In fact, I think Arafat was very important in the (albeit brief) peace (or semblance thereof). He seemed to have quite a bit to do, and quite a bit of international press, with talks and whatnot. Moreover, he’d be almost sure to be the head of any Palestinian government created.
As carnivorousplant said, Israel gave a warning before their rocket attack.
What does/did it accomplish, then? Did the perpetrators of the Israeli soldier massacre hang around after that warning, you think?
I must admit that the the Israel/Palestinian region and its conflicts really exasperates me. The fact that three of our major religions are focused around one holy area should be a rallying point; not a source of discord. They haven’t figured that out in a couple of millenia.
There is absolutely no way this dispute can be solved with anything other than a negotiated settlement. How many people have to die before everyone acknowledges that?
“Because of the dynamics in the Middle East, retaliation is completely acceptable. None of this “turn the other cheek” shit. You kill one of ours, we kill one of yours.”
Should be more like the ‘Chicago Way’
Send one of ours to the hospital, we send one of yours to the morgue.
Equal retaliation is a bit weak I think, not that I am suggesting the helicopter action was equal retaliation.
You have to overwhelm them, let them know this is not acceptable. Not to the point of dropping a nuke but maybe throw a few thousand rounds into the next group of rioters.
Peace was on track. The Palestinians, who are the ones with the most to gain by waiting out the process, got impatient.
I have a serious disagreement with this statement. Sharon knew that his visit to the Mount would cause problems and has lied about it ever since claiming that he never thought violence would break out. The fact that Barak just offered Sharon a large role in the Israeli gov’t after his deplorable actions illustrates that Israel is not as serious about the peace process as they claim.
I think that its impossible to lay claim to the holy land with blood on your hands.
Well, I guess it all hinges on whether or not Arafat is a terrorist. I do not think my calling him a terrorist is a “patent falsehood.” Many people, probably a great majority, believe this to be true.
Here’s a good quote from Sofa King with links showing Arafat’s terrorist tendencies.
If this is an accurate assessment (and I am acknowledging that perhaps you do not agree), then the rest of my characterization stands to follow. The very definition of a terrorist is one who foregoes peace in the name of violence. A terrorist stripped of the opportunity to do terrible things is an impotent creature. Maybe when the PLO and any other organization influenced (directly or indirectly) by Arafat stop performing terrorist acts, I will reconsider my opinion of Arafat as a terrorist.
You are allowed to have a “serious disagreement” with my statements. Could you please provide backup for the assertion I have underlined above?
I don’t know what Sharon did or did not know prior to his visit to the Temple Mount.
Even if he did know that his visit would agitate some Palistinians, do you think their reaction, including stoning worhippers at the Kotel Plaza, was warrented?
If not, how can Sharon be blamed for the unwarrented, unreasonable acts of others?
In your reply, please deal with the fact that, upon visiting the Mosque, Sharon saw piles of stones that had obviously been stockpiled there in preparation for a stoning of the Kotel Plaza before he showed up.
I will not dispute that Arafat is a terrorist (or at least was; I haven’t seen any evidence of him engaging in it recently); that’s not what I was calling a falsehood.
This * is what I am calling a flat-out lie. During the (relative) peace up until now, Arafat was still extremely important. If Palestine were to be granted an independant state tomorrow (ha ha), he would have a damn good shot at the Presidency/ Prime Minsisterhood (what do you use fo PM?) of that state. Will you dispute that?
Moreover, he would still have a cause: the safety, security, and welfare of the people he represents. Nothing in the definition of a terrorist (one who employs terrorism, see above) says that they want violence for its own sake. In fact, they are specifically using it as coercion for * something else. *
I am not convinced that Arafat can still be called a terrorist, but–even if we assume that he is one–the statements quoted above need not be, and in fact aren’t, true.
Can I prove that Sharon would know that? No. I can’t prove that anybody knows anything. However, this article quotes several people (including those close to Barak) who claim that he knew what he was doing. He’s considered a butcher by Palestinians. He lied about having visited there before. He showed up with 1,000 armed Israeli police.
I am in no way condoning the Palestinian response- but if you try tickling a bear and get mauled, don’t expect empathy for your actions. Antagonizing your enemy in the midst of a tenuous peace will lead to a violent reaction. Sharon would have to be completely clueless to believe otherwise. And there’s large piles of rocks everywhere in that area- its called “rubble”.
sdimbert- a point of information, if you would. Where are you getting the information that there were rocks piled at the Kotel Plaza?
The reason I ask is, if the information is based on what Sharon alone has said (and for some reason, and quite possibly all of the wrong ones, that’s my impression), then you have a situation where it is much more of a he said/she said: Sharon says that his visit was not meant to incite, and that he saw evidence that the Palestinians were ready to revolt anyways; the Palestinians say that Sharon showed up to humiliate and harass them, and that he’s just trying to pin the blame back on them.
If, on the other hand, the evidence is verified by other sources (especially neutral sources; having Sharon’s top advisor say “Oh, yes, I saw the rocks too” seems to me as suspect as Al Gore calling Bill Clinton the greatest president of the 20th century) then I would support the conclusions that you draw, namely that the Palestinians were just looking for an excuse to start something.
I apologize for my cheekiness on the “rubble” comment- but you yourself say that “no rubble, no ruins, no rocks.” I assume you mean typically.
That doesn’t change my main assertion that Sharon knew what he was doing and it was tantamount to throwing gas on a fire. I’d like to believe that either (or both) side(s) are serious but their actions speak much louder than their words.
Ok, Myrr21, I see better where you are coming from. I do not dispute that Arafat would likely be the official leader of a Palestine state. In this theoretical he indeed would have a position of importance in the region and world affairs.
However, I do not think that is going to happen. Even if it were, I would not be quick to remove the terrorist label. Much like I consider convicted murderers in prison to still be “murderers,” even if it was a single past event. Arafat has been involved (again, directly and indirectly) in more than one past terrorist event. The PLO is, to my mind, a terrorist organization. Could he erase that image? I guess for some (e.g, the Nobel committee) he already has. Not that he cares, but it would take a lot more in the way of atonement and renunciation of his past to sway my opinion of him.
Would Prime Minister Arafat then become a benign leader, concerned only (or primarily) with the safety, security, and welfare of the people he represents? Hmmm. I’m not so sure. I think he would be just one more mid-east leader causing trouble with the Israelis and other Arab groups and sub-groups. Only now, he would have an official title to back his actions. Of course, this is just my conjecture.
But you are right in that either way he would be an important figure.
I do not think Arafat or the PA exert real control over the Palestinians. He can sign peace and that will not stop violence. He is not a leader, as the saying goes, he is riding a tiger he dare not dismount.
To those who defend the Palestinians, I will remind you they are allies of the other anti-israeli, anti-American extremists, including those that attacked the Cole.
I find it a bit ironic that we are so ready to be understanding with the Palestinians but, as soon as it is one American life that is taken, then that changes everything. The israelis have to live with this every day.
Exactly.
The thing that amazes me is the breathtaking lack of respect the Arabs show for the Temple Mount and the Jews’ claim to this spot.
Let’s make something clear here: we are talking about the single holiest spot in Judaism. Sharon may be (and I believe he is) a lying, bigoted a-hole, but as a Jew he has every right to visit that spot. That is the point he is making. He is justified in making that point. The reaction of the Arabs to his visit only proves this point.
Do you think there is an Arab anywhere in this world who would tolerate anything close to what the Jews tolerate in Jerusalem, their holy city, every single second of every single minute of every single day?
What’s going on there is beyond outrageous. It’s a travesty of the worst sort. The Arabs deserve everything they get for what they are doing there, and ten times more.
Holy sites under Muslim control:
People who are not Muslims are not even allowed into the holy cities of Mecca and Medina (I’m going from memory here, not sure about Medina.) For the 19 years that Jordan was in control of half of Jerusalem, Jews were not allowed to visit Jewish holy sites (the Western Wall, for example, remains of the Second Temple). When control of the tomb of Joseph was, earlier this week, given to the Palestinians, they burned Jewish torah scrolls, defaced and almost destroyed an important holy site.
Holy sites under Jewish control:
When Israel gained control over the Western Wall and Temple Mount (that’s the Mosque site that was the immediate cause of the current eruption), access to all holy sites was given to ALL religions. For the last 33 years, Muslims have had access to those sites (security is tight, of course, but not intolerable. I have been to both the Muslim and Jewish holy sites in the area.)
Israel knows that if sections of Jerusalem are turned over to the Palestinians, Jews will be denied access to those sectios. Hence, the stalemate that led Arafat to unleash his forces.
Having talked to both Jewish and Arab Israelis, I believe that most people on all sides want peace. However, the Palestinian leaders and the leaders of the surrounding Arab countries prefer to put the Palestinian children on the front lines to try to gain world sympathy. These are the same leaders, mind you, who a few years ago sent 12 and 13 year old children carrying bombs on Israeli buses, to blow up as many civilians as they can. These are the same leaders who many years ago thought that blowing up commercial airplanes was a way of calling attention to their cause.
Arafat lost world opinion at Camp David. He had had the world media largely on his side pretty much since 1980. He had played the underdog card heavily throughout the intifada and wisely used it in 1993 to gain concessions out of the Israeli government.
Israel has some things that they will never ever compromise on. The Western Wall will not be in Palestinian hands. Israel cannot guarantee the right of return for 1 million violently anti-Israel refugees.
Barak came to Camp David with reasonable compromises, from all media reports. He agreed to take 10,000 refugees back and pay billions for the rest (according to Ha’aretz). He agreed to limited partial sovereignty over Temple Mount with full religious autonomy for the Palestinians.
It wasn’t enough for Arafat. He refused. He lost his best offer, and after Clinton openly criticized him, he lost world opinion.
So, he had to gain it back. He closed factories and schools before Rosh Hashana, and used a dumb appearance by Sharon to his advantage. He probably encouraged Muslim clerics to make vitriolic speeches and Palestinian TV and radio to broadcast anti-Israel rhetoric. Guess what happened?
Israel is hesitant about negotiating with him now not only because they feel this is what he has done, but because now he is largely powerless to stop it. If he can’t control his people, if he doesn’t represent the larger will of his people, if he releases convicted Hamas terrorists, if he refuses to prosecute those who participate in mob violence, then he has no real mandate for negotiating peace.
Actually, appointing Sharon as the foreign minister was quite a good move by Barak.
It appeases the fanatics and at the same time makes sure Sharon doesn’t have much control over domestic matters.
Now, as for the crisis as a whole, I fully agree with Milossarian in that the only way this is going to get solved is by negotiating an agreement.
Ino other words, Israel can kick the cr@p out of the Palestinians in retaliation, but do they really want to be fighting the same conflict fifty years from now?
Palestine will settle for nothing less than the complete obliteration of Israel. If Israel gave them the whole of Jerusalem, it wouldn’t be enough. Arafat knows this, he is in power because he will do anything to achieve the Palestinian objective of eliminating Israel as a nation. Everytime Arafat got a concession, he upped the ante. As far as shooting innocent children who were only throwing rocks and molatov cocktails, those children were soldiers in the Palestinian army. As soldiers, they took the risks of war and lost. It is unfortunate that one child who truly was innocent was killed but isn’t that “collateral damage”. Israel has a perfect right to defend itself. It has a right to exist as a nation. It has a right to keep land it won in a war (especially when that land was vital to its national defense). Palestine, on the other hand, deserves to be obliterated for their terrorist activities.
