Israeli security Cabinet will work to 'remove' Arafat

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Azadre
G-Man, your scenario would make sense if Britian was on the verge of annexing Germany and destroying the German houses and economy. Also, the Germans would have to be ridiculussly underpowered and then unable to kill the Jews. Why again would Britian want a treaty with Nazis?

So had Hitler not killed himself, do you think Britain would've left him in power and would negotiate with him about the future of Germany? And why wouldn't Britain want a peace treaty?
Arafat attacked Israel, he failed to keep the cease fire and peace agreements made, and there's no reason to believe he'll ever allow peace to exists. Removing him is the only possibility when trying to achieve peace.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by PresidentMike
Yes they did. In fact, they were well known for betraying and slaughtering their enemies. Their reputation, especially in the environment of Beirut in the '80's, should have been all the warning the Israelis needed.[/B]

The British have quite a reputation as well, especially in the area of Basra... A country at war can't spy on its allies all the time.

Originally posted by PresidentMike
I'm sorry you feel this way, but the evidence *is* overwhelming. They knew, they saw, they did nothing. If time permits, I will transcribe and post an exceprt from Friedman's From Beirut to Jerusalem describing the massacre.

There are no evidences of Israeli soldiers knowing about the massacres. You can claim they should've spied on the christians more, but there's a huge difference between that and claiming that Sharon used terrorism.

 

[Azadre]

Originally posted by G-Man


So had Hitler not killed himself, do you think Britain would've left him in power and would negotiate with him about the future of Germany? And why wouldn't Britain want a peace treaty?
Arafat attacked Israel, he failed to keep the cease fire and peace agreements made, and there's no reason to believe he'll ever allow peace to exists. Removing him is the only possibility when trying to achieve peace.

That, in my opinion, is different. If Palestine had ever tried to invade Israel and lost, it'd be fair game. Palestine has never tried to invade a country. Also, is Bush responsible for every hate crime that occurs in the US? If so, shouldn't he be ousted too?

 

[Azadre]

double post opps

 

[PresidentMike]

Originally posted by G-Man

There are no evidences of Israeli soldiers knowing about the massacres. You can claim they should've spied on the christians more, but there's a huge difference between that and claiming that Sharon used terrorism.

We're getting off topic here. Later today, in a seperate thread, I will post the exceprt, and we will carry on this discussion.

 

[Sickman]

using bus to travel in Israel if they smoke Arafat out.

The Palestinian groups, Al-Aksan, Hamas etc. are just itching to hear that. It would mean the death to any peace process now or in the near future.

Of course unless Arafat decides to leave himself to "give peace a chance"...that would be different.

Arafat and Sharon are old enemies and both of them shouldn't be really making any kind of politics if you ask me. They both are "terrorists".

It's just amazing how people fail to see the terror in the attack of other side when they see it so clearly on the other.

World is so funny, eh?...

 

[phoenix_night]

Originally posted by G-Man
Peace can only be achieved with Arafat gone. Can you imagine Britain signing a peace deal with Nazi Germany? The leadership must be removed in order for peace to come.

But the point is, by "removing" him you're not working towards peace. That's not peace at all. That's war, that's terrorism; an enforced peace would be nothing more than peace in name. You can't, and don't bring about peace by use of force. That would be a pointless exercise.

Originally posted by G-Man
Why?

Israel decides that this man is a terrorist and can't go on living, or at least leading. A message is sent out against terrorism. Yet this is achieved simply by the use of terrorism on Israel's part? Assassinating the opposition leader? Not only an act against peace, advertising war, but also highly hypocritical.

 

[Hamlet]

Politically, this is fairly stupid.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Azadre
That, in my opinion, is different. If Palestine had ever tried to invade Israel and lost, it'd be fair game. Palestine has never tried to invade a country. Also, is Bush responsible for every hate crime that occurs in the US? If so, shouldn't he be ousted too?

Palestinians have tried to invade Israel, and they're the ones to start the intifada.
And no, Bush isn't responsible for every hate crime in the US, but the US police is fighting hate crime conducters, and his party certainly isn't encouraging and conducting such crimes.
Arafat not only allows wanted terrorists to march in the streets, his organization has commited thousands of terror attacks a year for the last three years.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by phoenix_night
But the point is, by "removing" him you're not working towards peace. That's not peace at all. That's war, that's terrorism; an enforced peace would be nothing more than peace in name. You can't, and don't bring about peace by use of force. That would be a pointless exercise.

Ofcource removing Arafat won't be an act of peace. It would be an act of war done in order to enable peace. Hitler was removed by force. Does it mean there's no real peace between Britain and Germany?

Originally posted by phoenix_night
Israel decides that this man is a terrorist and can't go on living, or at least leading. A message is sent out against terrorism. Yet this is achieved simply by the use of terrorism on Israel's part? Assassinating the opposition leader? Not only an act against peace, advertising war, but also highly hypocritical.

How is fighting a terrorist terrorism? Terrorism is aimed at civilians. A man leading an active militia and responsible for the deaths of thousands is no more of a civilian than Bin Laden is.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Sickman
I don't recommend using bus to travel in Israel if they smoke Arafat out.

And now you would?

Originally posted by Sickman
The Palestinian groups, Al-Aksan, Hamas etc. are just itching to hear that. It would mean the death to any peace process now or in the near future.

Arafat has failed any attempt at a peace process so far. The terrorists need to be fought, and that can't be done as long as Arafat is in control of the PA's security forces.

Originally posted by Sickman
It's just amazing how people fail to see the terror in the attack of other side when they see it so clearly on the other.

World is so funny, eh?...

I fail to see Israel's acts of terror. Show them to me.

 

[HannibalBarka]

When you hit a car with a missile because a terrorist is in there, and you know that first he is not the only person in the car and second the car is in the middle of a crowd of civilian, THAT IS TERRORISM.
When the British were fighting the IRA, they didn't send missiles on cars or buildings in Belfast. And let me tell you some thing, the Israeli will never hit a car in Tel Aviv with a terrorist in it if the car is in the middle of a crowd. They do it only in Gaza or the WB, guess why ?

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by HannibalBarka
When you hit a car with a missile because a terrorist is in there, and you know that first he is not the only person in the car and second the car is in the middle of a crowd of civilian, THAT IS TERRORISM.

So because terrorists use civilians as human shield they should be allowed to continue with their actions?
And in any case Israel doesn't take actions against terrorists if it knows civilians will be killed - that's why so many terrorists are still alive.

Originally posted by HannibalBarka
When the British were fighting the IRA, they didn't send missiles on cars or buildings in Belfast. And let me tell you some thing, the Israeli will never hit a car in Tel Aviv with a terrorist in it if the car is in the middle of a crowd. They do it only in Gaza or the WB, guess why ?

Because in Belfast and Tel Aviv you had other ways of stopping terrorist - the local police. The local police in the west bank and gaza doesn't fight the terrorists and missiles are the only other possibility.

 

[Michael York]

I believe that Arafat is power drunk and sees Isreal as more of an enemy than the Palestinians as his felow people. I wish he would strap a bomb on himself rather than trying to convince Palestinien youth to do it. (as in that million martyr crap he said)

 

[nivi]

Originally posted by HannibalBarka
And let me tell you some thing, the Israeli will never hit a car in Tel Aviv with a terrorist in it if the car is in the middle of a crowd. They do it only in Gaza or the WB, guess why ?

Becouse (sp?) it is a bit hard to arrest someone when he got an angry mob full of hate to isrealy troops.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Just today: from the BBC

Israeli missiles targeted the home of Mahmoud Zahar - a senior member of Hamas - killing his son and bodyguard and leaving about 25 people injured.

So the "And in any case Israel doesn't take actions against terrorists if it knows civilians will be killed - that's why so many terrorists are still alive." is just lies.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Quote:
Becouse (sp?) it is a bit hard to arrest someone when he got an
angry mob full of hate to isrealy troops.

So if you can't him, bomb them all !!!!!!!! nice reasoning, the kind Hamas and Jihad make

 

[nivi]

So you suggest we just sit waiting on our asses?

 

[HannibalBarka]

So you suggest we just sit waiting on our asses? NO, I ma not saying this:
Build a wall on the 67 borders, evacuate all settlements in the WB and Gaza, share Jerusalem (where arab live is Palestinian, where jews live is Israeli) and find a way to compensate the refugees. The pression will goes down for both Arabs and Israeli, and only a few fraction in both sides will still want to fight with no popular support.

 

[amadeus]

And what about those that seek the total destruction of the State of Israel and the same for the Jews?