I figured it probably was his first born son. I was surely hoping that “Mazen” didn’t mean “suicide bomber” in Arabic. That wouldn’t help the peace process along!
Mojo: We hear a lot about Um Kasr, the city. Is that the same Um as in “Mother”? this site didn’t help much, but it was kind of interesting.
I don’t know- al-qasr is “castle”, but you got me if that has any relation to Umm Qasr. Abu Dhabi supposedly means “father of the dhabi” (dhabian are a type of arabian gazelle found in the region). I only know a few phrases and words, so this is prob. a Tamerlane/Collunsbury/Istara question.
I’ve heard that “Abu Mazen” is his nom du guerre, sort of like Abu Nidal (“father of the struggle”).
Well, hopefully the two sides can dispense with noms du guerre as they begin to negotiate the peace process.
I noticed in today’s paper that the “roadmap” is set to be complete in '05 if all goes well. Probably realistic timeframe, but I’m sure Bush would not have picked an end point before the next election. This way he is unlikely to have to face the accusation that it failed.
As to Arafat being a past terrorist, and so on … didn’t someone say “you don’t need to make peace with your friends”? The problem is not that he was a past murderer, but that he continues to facilitate terror to the present. He has shown that he no ability or interest in delivering on security from his side. From the POV of Israeli negotiators, he shown himself to be uninterested in really trying to resolve this conflict. If he was he would have engaged at CD2 when he had the chance. (Even if one disputes how good of an offer was made at CD2, there is wide agreement that Arafat just said “no” without any attempt to make counteroffers or to engage in any meaningful way … and fairly wide agreement that if he had engaged that some compromise would have been creatable)
But back to the op:
It is, as has been pointed out, impossible to totally stop “the whackos” from performing terroristic acts. But is possible to try to control it and to have some reasonable success.
There are elements, significant elements, among the Palestinians who feel that the only just settlement is the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. They will continue to use terror even if, perhaps especially if, a comprehensive settlement is reached, if any compromise is included.
If confrontation would only result in civil war and the terror is uncontrollable, then there is no reason for the Israelis to negotiate in good faith for the PA could never deliver anything from their end. I do not believe that is the case.
I do not believe that terror must be stopped before Israel responds either. I think that settlements should be frozen and some removed just because they are wrong and an obstacle.* But real progress won’t happen on that basis. Real progress won’t happen until the PA makes a good faith effort to rein in terror. Then real work can commence because you know that you have someone who is going to be able to deliver some reasonable facsimile of security from their end.
*It should also be noted that freezing settlements before seeing some effort to decrease terror first may be just as “impossible” for Israel, given the current political climate there, as taking on Hamas is for the PA.
Skip, Seid on bombing of the King David:
Let’s continue this discussion in the thread dealing with the subject. I have posted a reply there.
Claim by the Israelis (contended). You have to make a stronger case if you want to prove this as fact.
So butchering people is ok when the right people are doing the butchering?
Because these things happened solely in your imagination.
Well, ask Yitzhak Shamir. He got a nation out of it. From wanted terrorist he got to be prime minister. Ask the settlers. Their assassination of Rabin got them a lot, too. But I forgot: Murdering people is ok, as long as it’s done by people you sympathize with.
False, PA has repeatedly taken on terrorists and engaged in numerous shootouts. But with a dwindling infrastructure, it’s not exactly easy to rein in anyone. And when the people who are supposed to rein in Hammas and Jihad are constantly being targeted themselves by the IDF, it’s kinda hard to see how they should develop a zeal to do the IDF a favor.
Wide agreement among pro-Israeli commentators. Not among anyone with half his brain together.
If you have the tools to do so.
The very same elements, equally significant, exist among the Israelis. In case you forgot, Yigal Amir was not a Palestinian.
And who defines what a good faith effort is? So far, Israel has accepted no outside judgement on the issue whatsoever. It is kind of strange that you see a requirement to see someone able to deliver some reasonable facsimile of security from the Palestinian end, but are willing to tolerate the wholesale breach of human rights and Geneva Conventions from the other side until then. How precisely should one side be able to ensure the other side something the other side is not willing to ensure in return?
Are you accusing present day PLO of terrorism?
Are you accusing present day PLO of terrorism?
The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade are part of Fatah who in turn are part of the PLO. From this article
Which shows pretty well the PLO is NOT controlling these people.
I used to think so too, until the Karine-A ship was intercepted with a ton or so of C-4 on it. Then it was that Arafat didn’t know anything about it, so they arrested the PA officials responsible and replaced them. But there’s no denying that even the PA itself has been involved to some degree, and that all of these organizations do come under the authority of the PLO.
Oliver: The article stated pretty clearly that thet Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is an extremist movement within Fatah, which is one of the movements in the PLO (which in itself is an umbrella organisation).
And if the PLO/PA/Arafat have no control over the extremists, then how can Israel negotiate in good faith with Arafat? He can not make any concessions on ending terror if ,as you say, he has no control over the terrorists. Yet Arafat will refuse to allow anyone else to do any negotiations with Israel (as witnessed by his mini struggle with his newly appointed PM, Arafat demanded he still be solely in charge of talks with Israel even though his parliament wished to give some of that power to the PM).
Interesting. But quite inconsistent. First you say that Israel should not negotiate with Arafat because he controls the terrorists. Then you say that Israel should not negotiate with Arafat because he doesnt control the terrorists.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Wouldnt you say?
Al Aqsa Brigades is a splinter organistation of Arafat’s Fatah party. By splinter movement, I mean that Fatah doesn’t want absolutely horrible PR to the Western world, but still wishes to be popular with its constituency.
I would like to point out, OliverH, that Israel has little choice in the matter. Israel’s incursions into the PA and its roadblocks are in order to stop terrorism. They did not come about merely to antagonise the Palestinians.
I don’t know who Shamir is, but I assume he is of the Lapid or Stern gangs pre-independence of 1948. Few nowadays exactly approve of him. I would also like to point out that Menachem Begin, also a terrorist, made peace with Egypt. The settlers certainly did not assasinate Rabin. Don’t talk about things you have no clue about. One deranged religious guy assasinated him. He wasn’t even a settler[I think].
Not really, I never said Israel should not negotiate with Arafat. I believe Israel should negotiate with whoever is in control. If Arafat has control over the terrorists, then he should be the one negotiating but (and this is a very big but) then he has been lying through his teeth for the past few years because then he would have been fully capable of stopping the violence so that negotiations can start.
If he doesn’t have control, then like I said he has no business making agreements he has no way of keeping.
The article stated pretty clearly that they care crap what ‘those up there’ say.
Sorry, but there are two kinds of control: Being the superior in command and being in control through force. Arafat is obviously not the superior in command, as your article shows clearly. Without a security infrastructure, however, there is no way for him -OR ABBAS- to control through force. You can’t lock people up when your prisons are rubble. You can’t arrest armed people when the mere presence of a gun in the hands of a palestinian invokes air strikes and heavy artillery fire. You can’t find hidden activists when they have the sympathy of the population because they actually do something about the random killing, destruction and terrorization of the civilian population that the IDF routinely engages in. And that isn’t palestinian propaganda, but rather based on accounts of IDF reservists who refuse to have anything to do with it anymore
Sorry, but that is hogwash. I would suggest you read the accounts of the Refusenik reservists on how civilian palestinian population is routinely terrorised. I would suggest you elaborate on how Israel has little choice but to resort to random killing and destruction even in situations where no actual threat is posed.
I would suggest you inform yourself better. If you don’t know who Shamir is, you certainly demonstrate little background knowledge on Israel. As for the ‘deranged religious guy’, he was member of a religious movement of settlers.
"He is believed to be one of the founders of an illegal Jewish settlement on the West Bank and a member of an extreme right-wing organisation. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/4/newsid_2514000/2514437.stm
Mojo
Verrrry interesting tidbit about Abbas’ stance on the Nazi/holocaust issue.
I find it interesting that no one has seen fit to address it, choosing instead to retread the same old pro-Palestine/pro-Israeli polemics that we see day in and day out.
For myself, Abbas is a completely unknown quantity- your allegation would definitely give me an ooky feeling if true. Surely, some of our more conversant dopers should have something to say on this matter?
Whatever suits your fancy. You better inform the Israelis of your findings though; they haven’t been very willing to negotiate with terrorists in the past.