Israeli security Cabinet will work to 'remove' Arafat

[G-Man]

The decision talked about "removing" arafat. It can be interperted as expulsing him, arresting him or simply killing him. And the reason it was published is because it means that the goverment allows it, but it doesn't mean it's going to happen now - the timing would be decided by the prime minister and the defence minister.

Originally posted by archer_007
Sharon is just as much a terrorist as Arafat. We get to the point were we throw that label around liberally.

Sharon doesn't use terrorism, thus he's not a terrorist. Terrorism is attacking civilians for political purposes. This was for a very long time Arafat's official policy and all evidence suggest it's still his policy.

 

[Ahmad]

I don't like or trust Arafat.

But 'removing' the popular and elected president of the Palestinians by force is going to make matters immeasurably worse without that much gain. You can remove Arafat but his supporters will still be running things the same way. It's probably a better idea to wait for Arafat to die from natural causes.

Then again maybe things need to get worse before they can get better.

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by PresidentMike


Everyone dies, but I don't think "Israel" will be listed as the cause on Arafat's death certificate.

Precisely. It'll be a cowardly suicide, the corpse photographed with pistol in hand. Full autopsy. His own bullet. Watch.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Ahmad
But 'removing' the popular and elected president of the Palestinians by force is going to make matters immeasurably worse without that much gain. You can remove Arafat but his supporters will still be running things the same way. It's probably a better idea to wait for Arafat to die from natural causes.

As long as Arafat is in power there can't be any progress - just yesterday his puppet PM decided to unite all Palestinian security forces under Arafat's control. Every evidence in the last three years suggests that Arafat still supports terrorism - including documents signed by him approving transfer of money for building bomb belts to be used by suicide bombers. And in any case Arafat is far from being the elected leader. He was elected nearly a decade ago and didn't agree to have any more elections since.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
Precisely. It'll be a cowardly suicide, the corpse photographed with pistol in hand. Full autopsy. His own bullet. Watch.

That's very likely, especially since Arafat himself said that what he'll do.

 

[Ahmad]

Originally posted by G-Man


As long as Arafat is in power there can't be any progress - just yesterday his puppet PM decided to unite all Palestinian security forces under Arafat's control. Every evidence in the last three years suggests that Arafat still supports terrorism - including documents signed by him approving transfer of money for building bomb belts to be used by suicide bombers. And in any case Arafat is far from being the elected leader. He was elected nearly a decade ago and didn't agree to have any more elections since.

I agree. But my point is he's still popular and would probably win another election if it were held right now. No progress with Arafat in power, but removing him by force will make matters worse at least in the short term. Waiting for him to be out of the picture without Israeli interference might be the better yet bitter option.

 

[PresidentMike]

Originally posted by G-Man

Sharon doesn't use terrorism, thus he's not a terrorist. Terrorism is attacking civilians for political purposes.

Sabra and Shatila: Palestinean civilians butchered by Christian Phalangist militamen. Following Sharon's orders Israeli troops allowed them into the camps, then stood and watched as they slaughtered between 450-800 persons. Under your definition, a case could be made that Sharon is indeed a "terrorist."

 

[PresidentMike]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom


Precisely. It'll be a cowardly suicide, the corpse photographed with pistol in hand. Full autopsy. His own bullet. Watch.

I don't expect to see "suicide" on his death certificate either. Odds are he'll die of complications releated to stress, old age and the conditions he's been living under for the past two years. The other (much, much less likely) possibility is that he's killed by extremists from one side or the other. But the Israeli state can't get away with killing him (much as some in the government would like to) and I don't see him ending his own life.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by PresidentMike


Sabra and Shatila: Palestinean civilians butchered by Christian Phalangist militamen. Following Sharon's orders Israeli troops allowed them into the camps, then stood and watched as they slaughtered between 450-800 persons. Under your definition, a case could be made that Sharon is indeed a "terrorist."

The Israeli troops "allowed" them in simply because this was a part of an area to be taken over by them. Can you imagine American troops in Iraq not allowing British troops to enter Basra?

And the Israeli soldiers weren't even there and didn't even know about it. It was part of a phalangist controlled area and as such was controlled by them, not by Israel.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Ahmad


I agree. But my point is he's still popular and would probably win another election if it were held right now. No progress with Arafat in power, but removing him by force will make matters worse at least in the short term. Waiting for him to be out of the picture without Israeli interference might be the better yet bitter option.

There's no telling as to how long Arafat will still live. We've waited for too long already. Making things worst for the short term in order to improve the situation for the longer run is Israel's current policy. Arafat's rule has already caused thousands of Israeli victims and there's no end in sight, removing him is a necessary step in order to bring peace.

 

[phoenix_night]

Israel may think there will be no peace with Arafat, but to remove him?

That's not peace. You're not coming to a peace when you use force; when you gain all by your decision and power and the other party is simply forced into it.

 

[greenmtnsun]

Are we prepared for a potential world war if the palestinians call in their Arab friends because they expelled him? Militarily Israel/USA would win, but are we prepared for a full out war? A potential draft? Pakestan turning on us and leaving Afganestan in HELL? Indonesia going nuts over everything, who knows what other countries getting involved? IRAQ going ape and into a complete full out war with all crazed Islamic Extremist throughout the middle east?

I know its an "if", but it COULD REALLY happen. Is the US public prepared for that? Are they even "invested" or "buy in" in that?

Just some thoughts...

Keith

 

[PresidentMike]

Originally posted by G-Man


The Israeli troops "allowed" them in simply because this was a part of an area to be taken over by them. Can you imagine American troops in Iraq not allowing British troops to enter Basra?

British troops don't have a reputation for massacring their opponents. This was days after the Christian president (allied with Israel and leader of the militia) had been assassinated. It shouldn't have taken much brain power to see what was going to happen when gunmen entered civilian refugee camps.

And the Israeli soldiers weren't even there and didn't even know about it. It was part of a phalangist controlled area and as such was controlled by them, not by Israel.

Read Thomas L. Friedman's (Pulitizer Prize winning NY Times reporter) articles and books on the subject. Before the milita went in the Israeli troops surrounded the area and set up checkpoints. They could hear the gunfire coming from inside the camps. They intercepted militia radio transmissions. In some places, they could *see* into the camps and observe what was going on. At night, they fired flares to illuminate the camp for the militia. They knew what was happening and there is no excuse, just as there is no excuse for the American troops at My Lay.

 

[phoenix_night]

And to add, "removing" Arafat "the terrorist" would be highly hypocritical.

 

[Azadre]

Russia, Palestinians, and even the US aren't going to let this happen.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by PresidentMike
British troops don't have a reputation for massacring their opponents. This was days after the Christian president (allied with Israel and leader of the militia) had been assassinated. It shouldn't have taken much brain power to see what was going to happen when gunmen entered civilian refugee camps.

The British have quite a few skeletons in their closet. And the phalangists weren't known for commiting massacres back then. It's very easy to see the results after they happen. It was a war. Did you expect Israel to tell the christians to stop fighting because their leader was assasinated?

Originally posted by PresidentMike
Read Thomas L. Friedman's (Pulitizer Prize winning NY Times reporter) articles and books on the subject. Before the milita went in the Israeli troops surrounded the area and set up checkpoints. They could hear the gunfire coming from inside the camps. They intercepted militia radio transmissions. In some places, they could *see* into the camps and observe what was going on. At night, they fired flares to illuminate the camp for the militia. They knew what was happening and there is no excuse, just as there is no excuse for the American troops at My Lay.

And which part should've made them think there was a massacre there? The part where they hear gunfire in a frontline in war or the part when their allies asked them to shoot flares so they can see at night? There are no evidences at all that Israeli troops knew what was really happening there.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by phoenix_night
Israel may think there will be no peace with Arafat, but to remove him?

That's not peace. You're not coming to a peace when you use force; when you gain all by your decision and power and the other party is simply forced into it.

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.

Originally posted by phoenix_night
And to add, "removing" Arafat "the terrorist" would be highly hypocritical.

Why?

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by greenmtnsun
Are we prepared for a potential world war if the palestinians call in their Arab friends because they expelled him? Militarily Israel/USA would win, but are we prepared for a full out war? A potential draft? Pakestan turning on us and leaving Afganestan in HELL? Indonesia going nuts over everything, who knows what other countries getting involved? IRAQ going ape and into a complete full out war with all crazed Islamic Extremist throughout the middle east?

I know its an "if", but it COULD REALLY happen. Is the US public prepared for that? Are they even "invested" or "buy in" in that?

Just some thoughts...

Keith

It'll never happen. Arab countries won't risk a single soldier for the Palestinians.

 

[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?

 

[PresidentMike]

Originally posted by G-Man

And the phalangists weren't known for commiting massacres back then. It's very easy to see the results after they happen. It was a war. Did you expect Israel to tell the christians to stop fighting because their leader was assasinated?

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.

And which part should've made them think there was a massacre there? The part where they hear gunfire in a frontline in war or the part when their allies asked them to shoot flares so they can see at night? There are no evidences at all that Israeli troops knew what was really happening there.

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.