That was when they tried to overthrow the government, correct? Like I said, nobody wants to invite a bunch of terrorists to come live in their country. Much like American liberals, the Arab world has NIMB syndrome.
<a HREf="http://firms.findlaw.com/MariLaw/memo9.htm"></a> <i>...............Elections were monitored by local and international NGOs and press, observers sent by the European Union, the Organisation of Islamic Conference, other delegates from Jordan, Yemen, Egypt, Japan, and Norway. Former US president, Jemmy Carter, headed a delegation that comprised 40 observers. Reports by observers were published before as well as after the elections took place. Although one Palestinian elections’ observer was shot dead by a Palestinian policeman when the deceased asked the latter to leave the election’s room in a village near Nablus, no further violence was reported during the day the elections took place. However, lots of the so-called "irregularities" have taken place before as well after the elections have taken place. In a statement entitled "[E]nough is enough", the head of the EU Elections Unit described irregularities and problems in the election process that: ‘add to the difficulties of the independent candidates and the opposition parties.’. Amongst the irregularities were bias by the PA Television and Radio stations who did not give equal opportunities to all candidates; the constant change of the number of seats allocated to each constituency; the shortening of the elections’ campaigning period; the arrest of opposition political figures; the loss of ballot boxes; double voting; and attacks on the freedom of the press. While the general impression created by the media around the world was that these elections were fair, it is my opinion that the severe irregularities that took place before and after the elections took place can not but undermine, whilst to a certain extent, the fairness of these elections. If added to these factors, the election system itself is quite problematic and allows a marginal majority to manipulate a very big minority. Former US president Carter informed reporters two days before the voting took place that: <b> ‘ndependant and other candidates have not been given access to the electronic media. This has not been fair. ... There has been a pattern of intimidation ... . Some of the most prominent human rights observers, human rights activists among the Palestinians have been arrested, distinguished journalists have been arrested ... . This intimidation has not been helpful.’.................</b> </i> <center> <i>testing a theory</i> </center>
Enough. The world will not help us; we must help ourselves. We must kill as many of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders as possible, as quickly possible, while minimizing collateral damage, but not letting that damage stop us. And we must kill Yasser Arafat, because the world leaves us no alternative. No one seriously argues with the fact that Arafat was preventing Mahmoud Abbas, the prime minister he appointed, from combating terrorism, to the extent that was willing to do so. Almost no one seriously disputes that Abbas on whom Israel, the US, and Europe had placed all their bets failed primarily because Arafat retained control of much of the security apparatus, and that Arafat wanted him to fail. The new prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, clearly will fare no better, since he, if anything, has been trying to garner more power for Arafat, not less. Under these circumstances, the idea of exiling Arafat is gaining currency, but the standard objection is that he will be as much or more of a problem when free to travel the world than he is locked up in Ramallah. If only three countries Britain, France, and Germany joined the US in a total boycott of Arafat this would not be the case. If these countries did not speak with Arafat, it would not matter much who did, and however much a local Palestinian leader would claim to consult with Arafat, his power would be gone. But such a boycott will not happen. Only now, after more than 800 Israelis have died in three years of suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks, has Europe finally decided that Hamas is a terrorist organization. How much longer will it take before it cuts off Arafat? Yet Israel cannot accept a situation in which Arafat blocks any Palestinian break with terrorism, whether from here or in exile. Therefore, we are at another point in our history at which the diplomatic risks of defending ourselves are exceeded by the risks of not doing so. Such was the case in the Six Day War, when Israel was forced to launch a preemptive attack or accept destruction. And when Menachem Begin decided to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. And when Israel launched Operation Defensive Shield in Palestinian cities after the Passover Massacre of 2002. In each case, Israel tried every fashion of restraint, every plea to the international community to take action that would avoid the need for "extreme" measures, all to no avail. When the breaking point arrives, there is no point in taking half-measures. If we are going to be condemned in any case, we might as well do it right. Arafat's death at Israel's hands would not radicalize Arab opposition to Israel; just the opposite. The current jihad against us is being fueled by the perception that Israel is blocked from taking decisive action to defend itself. Arafat's survival and power are a test of the proposition that it is possible to pursue a cause through terror and not have that cause rejected by the international community. Killing Arafat, more than any other act, would demonstrate that the tool of terror is unacceptable, even against Israel, even in the name of a Palestinian state. Arafat does not just stand for terror, he stands for the refusal to make peace with Israel under any circumstances and within any borders. In this respect, there is no distinction, beyond the tactical, between him and Hamas. Europe's refusal to utterly reject him condemns Palestinians, no less than Israelis, to endless war and dooms the possibility of the two-state solution the world claims to seek. While the prospect of a Palestinian power vacuum is feared by some, the worst of all worlds is what exists now: Terrorists attack Israel at will under the umbrella of legitimacy provided by Arafat. Hamas would not be able to fill a post-Arafat vacuum; on the contrary, Hamas would lose the cover it has today. A word must be said here about the most common claim made by those who would not isolate Arafat, let alone kill him: that he is the elected leader of the Palestinian people. Even if Arafat was chosen in a truly free election (when does his term end?), which we would dispute, this does not close the question of his legitimacy. Whom the Palestinians choose to lead them is none of our business, provided it is a free choice, and provided they do not opt for leaders who choose terror and aggression. So long as the Palestinians choose such a leadership, it should be held no more immune to counterattack by Israel than the Taliban and Saddam Hussein were by the United States. We complain that a double standard is applied to us, and it is. But we cannot complain when we apply that double standard to ourselves. Arafat's survival, under our watchful eyes, is living testimony to our tolerance of that double standard. If we want another standard to be applied, we must begin by applying it ourselves.
I know I'm one of the more bellicose on Arafat, but remember that I don't think too much more highly of Sharon. Arafat is the guy who STARTED the use of terror in the modern (post 1970) Mideast as a method of negotiation. Unfortunately, the 1970s left us impotent to deal appropriately in the Mideast because of our lengthy, costly misadventure in Indochina. We should have killed the b@stard then. It's 30 years later, and I can safely say that the SOB has done no good whatsoever. Whatever follows his killing may be worse, but I don't see how it can be. Someone needs to punch his ticket. It's way past expired. All we are say-ing, is "give assassination a chance."
There are differing opinions on how fair the elections were. In general they were portraid as fair, but others disagree. I believe they probably weren't as fair as they should have been, but the process was still democratic, on the whole.
Jordan is one country where they might adjust easily. Many of the others are not. I know I've been guilty of arguing this point too, but I think it's a side point. Why should they have to move to another country? Why should you have to move to UK, Australia, New Zealand or anywhere else. If you wanted to that would be one thing, but if you were forced to it wouldn't be fair. Especially if the people who were forcing you just recently moved in, and told you to move. Then to make it worse other people are saying, 'yeah why don't you just move, you could get along well with English and Kiwis and Aussies.' The real point is that you shouldn't have to move at all. You and your family had been there for centuries.
FranchiseBlade, The Israelis didn't JUST move in, they have been there for thousands of years too. In fact, on the street you could not tell the difference between an Israeli and a Palastinian. Isn't religion great....kill people just like you all in the name of religion...... Wonderful. DD
The biggest joke of all is how Arafat got a Nobel peace prize? I think Arafat should be killed by the same method he supports in killing Israelis...by a suicide bomber. Maybe if he is exiled, then there will be the chance for someone to take him out on his world tour promoting terrorism and condemning Israel.
I think the real problem, regarding claims at least, is that the Palestinians had maintained a stronger, longer continuous presence. From a legal perspective, that's the most important part... *note: haven doesn't really give a **** who was there first. haven wishes each side would ****ing grow up. haven advocates either total US/or UN occupation, or sending our TV cameras and diplomats to a trouble spot more easily resolved with soft (read: photo op) diplomacy.
Ah, the Karma approach! Does this mean we can gradually choke Israel via economic sanctions and withold basic liberties? I mean, if you really want what goes around to come around, it's only appropriate to apply the principle to both sides, right? Note: Apologies for the consecutive posts.
No, it just means a man who has been so involved with terrorism over such a long period of time deserves a taste of his own medicine .
I say kill him. He is behind the past three years of terrorism and outright battle we have seen in the Palestine/Israel area; without his blessing, Tanzim/Fatah factions would not budge, and if you think that Hamas operates freely in the West Bank, you're mistaken. Arafat's the boss, and they don't start an offensive until he tells them something cryptic like "If only another martyr operation would get us the political leverage we need... Oh, I wish we could see such an outcome", or whatever the hell it is he 'let's them in on'. Politically, we have a bunch of idiotic liberal extremists in the US, most of the Euros, and pretty much the rest of the world sans the Indians who for some godawful reason (and why they think this, I don't know, because I have never heard a single example of anything statesmanlike that he has actually done) think that Arafat is actually an important statesman. Relevant - sure, he's definitely relevant. But these people actually think that it's possible that Arafat will be an instrument of peace??? I mean, either he will be or he won't be, and if he won't be, then what's his use? Aside from killing Israelis? How friggen deluded can you get? This guy was the Osama bin Laden of the 1970s. He has the blood of thousands of people on his hands. He is personally responsible for inciting the current intifada and the violence that has followed. Hell, orders signed in his name have been found detailing bomb-making orders for parts and attack destinations for the Al Aqsa Martyrs, responsible for waves of suicide bombings in Israel. He is a friggen mass murderer, plain and simple, and he has never had any interest in real peace. The one time he actually had a chance to make peace between the two peoples (by no means ideal or perfect, but at least a chance) he just friggen walked away from it. Since then he has made not one concession or move to get back to that negotiating place. Not one. Get rid of him. And personally, if I were Sharon, I'd not seriously look at exile, I'd only consider a uh, more, uh, permanent solution. Because he will only come back to haunt you from afar. All he needs is a cellphone and a functioning brain to be a threat. Eliminate him. But that's just me...
No doubt and for those who would bring up the Nobel Peace Prize, he no more deserved it than any other tinhorn, two-bit, pusnuts dictator who keeps his people obedient through fear and sends young men to the slaughter via the car bomb. He is a disgrace and proof positive that the Nobel Peace Prize is now a big joke.
Uh, treeman, just another liberal extremist here (the kind you lumped in with "the rest of the world" or some such), but how do you know these things? Were you kicking back with 'Fat and suddenly he got on his cellie and started ordering up some whoop ass terror attacks? Seriously, the guy is shady, and he did walk away from peace, and I've read so much from all sides, but to say he is a prime mover may attribute way too much power and competance to his flabby ass.
I haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if this has been brought up before... I have no qualms about assassinating bad guys, but in this case, if you're going to do it, it should have been done 30+ years ago. To now wax a guy who is on the relative decline and will probably be dead in a short time anyway and make him a martyr so that his memory can be exploited by the lesser-knowns to wreak even more havoc seems counter-productive.
B-Bob: Just pay attention to what he does, what he doesn't do, what he says when he thinks that only Palestinians are listening, and what starts happening when he does/says these things. You'll start to see a pattern. I guess one way to guage his involvement will be when he is out of the picture. If I am right, then I would expect two things to happen: 1) a period of inflammation immediately following Arafat's removal, where the Palestinians strike back at Israel for the percieved disrespect and humiliation of removing Arafat, i.e., a period of increased violence, followed by 2) the rise of a new class of Palestinian leadership that will actually work in a somewhat honest and less duplicitous fashion with Israel and the international community, one which will actually make and stick to significant deals that ultimately lead to peace and a two-state solution. Hopefully I will turn out to be right on this, and it looks like we'll get a chance to see whether or not I am. Personally, I see removing Arafat from the picture as the only possible way to achieve peace - he has certainly been an impediment to progress. I said it even before the whole "roadmap" exercise... We shall see.
To kill him will be a Mortal Sin, even believing that its a viable solution that you would carry out is a Mortal Sin of desire.
