or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Irrelevant Man
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Irrelevant Man

post #1 of 62
Thread Starter 
You know it's bad when both the NYT and the WSJ come out aginst Arafat. Why is this terrorist not rotting in the Hag waiting for a trial? Or better yet an Israeli jail?


<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/17/opinion/17SAFI.html" target="_blank">The Irrelevant Man</a>

By WILLIAM SAFIRE

[quote]WASHINGTON -- Three days after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel declared him "irrelevant," Yasir Arafat hastened to try to recapture leadership of a coalition dominated by terrorists. After a spate of phony "crackdowns" on killers he then quickly released to murder again, Arafat insisted yesterday that next time would be different

But the inescapable fact is that the suicide-murders of Jewish civilians are organized and carried out not only by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, but also by Arafat's Force 17, his large police force and his personal Tanzim militia. They comprise a terror coalition, supplying one another with arms, money and suicidal killers. The notion that Palestinian bombers have been opposed by Arafat "moderates" is propaganda that not even Israel's enemies any longer believe.

Why is Arafat loudly proclaiming his new abhorrence of the murder of civilians? Not because of international pressure; on the contrary, the U.N. Security Council last week wanted to send observers to "protect" terrorists from Israel. Only a forceful veto ordered by President Bush, who has been a stalwart ally, stopped that hypocrisy cold.

The real reason for the latest Arafat oration "declaring illegal" the campaign he launched: his terrorists, having triggered open warfare, are losing that war. The Israeli military is now making the arrests and executing the killers, acts that an authoritative Palestinian Authority should have been doing.

Following Arafat's latest call for "immediate cessation of hostilities," I phoned Jerusalem to get a reaction from a prominent Middle East analyst.

"We are fed up with false promises and lies," Prime Minister Sharon said. "What is important is not declarations but deeds. Your General Zinni - a serious professional we hope to see again - provided to Arafat a list of terrorists we knew were plotting attacks. No steps were taken. Soon after, two of the names on that list bombed a bus killing 10 of our people. Therefore, because our government cannot trust Arafat, we will have no more contact with him. That is how he made himself irrelevant."

What is it about the concept of "relevance" that the Israelis emphasize and that so rattles Arafat? I figure it's his ability to deliver international backing. But when he double-crossed the would-be peacemakers Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak - and then joined with overtly terrorist groups to break Israel's spirit - Arafat lost his ability to deliver either the Israeli left or the American superpower. Result: personal irrelevance born of profound mistrust, at a moment when Palestinians whose practical goal is viable statehood most need a leader trusted by others.

Sharon's point that Arafat no longer counts seems to be hitting home. To regain relevance - to become a player again - the man who in the past has been the embodiment of Palestinian hopes must first turn against members of the terror coalition he formed. That is the significance of Arafat's newsworthy line in yesterday's speech: "We will not accept more than one authority on this land."

Is this his declaration of civil war against the groups in his alliance that have grown more powerful than he planned? Such decisiveness would be un-Arafatlike; if true to form, he will patch things up as soon as outsiders intercede to take the heat off. But internecine strife is inevitable someday between the amalgam of terror groups (Hamas, Iran's Hezbollah, Arafat's presidential guard, his Tanzim, etc.) and the future Palestinian Authority headed by Arafat or his successor.

That's why, I surmise, Sharon does not challenge the legitimacy of the authority, to which Israel has transferred many powers over everyday Arab life. "We are not causing harm to Arafat physically. We are not escalating and we are not acting against the Palestinian Authority."

What about a time after Arafat - will the next Palestinian leader defeat the terrorists? "We do not interfere in others' decisions," says Sharon carefully. "Some Palestinian leaders understand that Arafat has brought them to disaster, and they know we do not respect him as a partner. Maybe one day somebody will rise up, and there is already heavy criticism of him from Palestinians. But before they can take responsible steps, it has to be widely understood that Arafat - by being responsible for creating this coalition of terror - has made himself irrelevant."<hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95001609" target="_blank">Who Needs Arafat? The world could hardly be worse without the PLO chairman.</a>

BY CAROLINE B. GLICK
Monday, December 17, 2001 12:01 a.m. EST

[quote]TEL AVIV--Last week, in the wake of yet another massacre of Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorists, the Israeli security cabinet announced it was severing relations with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. Although it has been obvious for some time that Mr. Arafat is an obstacle, not a means, to peace in the Middle East, most policy makers have been loath to voice this simple truth. The main concern is that while Mr. Arafat is clearly a source of instability, his replacement could be even worse. Many argue that the Palestinian Islamic terrorist group Hamas, which overtly rejects Israel's right to exist, is the most likely successor to Mr. Arafat's leadership.

Given the Palestinian Authority's public complacency and private cooperation with Hamas in its attacks against Israel, a growing number of Israelis now greet the possibility of a Hamas takeover with the unblinking response of "so what?" As retired Israeli general and terrorism expert Meir Dagan explained to me some months ago: "In a way it would be better if the Hamas takes over. Then there would be no ambiguity. Today, Arafat conducts a terrorist war against us and still enjoys international legitimacy as a peace partner. If the Hamas takes over, our goal will be clear--to defeat them. No one will argue that we have to negotiate with these people."

Yet while the prospect of a Hamas-led regime may have the positive feature of clarity, it is also highly unlikely. Although Palestinian support for Hamas has risen over the past 15 months, this public backing is due mainly to increased hatred for Israel rather than a swelling of support for Hamas's political or ideological agenda. A source from Israeli military intelligence explains the seeming contradiction: "Hamas is now supported by 30% of Palestinians in contrast to 9% of Palestinians who declared support for Hamas before the outbreak of violence in September 2000. However, it is very unlikely that in the event of Arafat's removal, this support will be translated into political backing of a Hamas regime. Palestinians are far from interested in establishing an Islamic state."

If not Hamas, then who can replace the chairman? Mr. Arafat, who has personally symbolized Palestinian nationalist aspirations for over a generation, has no single replacement. When Mr. Arafat goes, he--like Stalin--will be replaced by a junta. Israeli experts concur that the most likely successor regime will be a quadripartite coalition comprised of two political leaders and two military commanders who together possess the necessary resources to assume the helm.

The two political leaders, Mahmud Abbas, Mr. Arafat's No. 2 in the PLO, and Ahmed Queria, the speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, have risen to international prominence in their roles as lead negotiators with Israel over the past eight years. Mr. Abbas (a.k.a Abu Mazzan) is viewed as a statesman by Palestinians and Westerners alike. Last summer Mr. Abbas ran into trouble with Mr. Arafat when the Palestinian media reported that during meetings in Washington with Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice he discussed prospects for a successor regime to Mr. Arafat. After a few months in Mr. Arafat's doghouse, senior Palestinians prevailed upon their chief to bring his deputy back into the leadership fold. While acceptable politically to the Palestinians, Mr. Abbas lacks Mr. Arafat's charisma, and commands no military forces of his own.

Mr. Queria, who goes by the nom de guerre Abu Ala, rose to international prominence as the chief Palestinian negotiator with Israel--a position he has held off and on since 1993. In this post, he cultivated good relations with the State Department and the European Union and built up the international bona fides to consolidate his position next to Mr. Abbas. More important for his future in a post-Arafat coalition is Mr. Queria's economic power. He has controlled and managed the PLO's finances for the past 20 years and has the economic muscle to ensure his place at the table.

The military commanders who will stand beside Messrs. Abbas and Queria are Jibril Rajoub and Mohamed Dahlan--the heads of the Palestinian preventive security forces in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. While Mr. Arafat has 13 separate security forces, the preventive security forces in both areas are the undisputed masters of their realms. Whereas all the other militias are comprised of officers and troops who came into the region with Mr. Arafat in 1994, the preventive security forces consist chiefly of locals. This distinction is crucial, for the main bone of contention between the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza and Mr. Arafat's PA has been the feeling among the majority of Palestinians that they replaced one foreign occupier--Israel--with another foreign occupier--Mr. Arafat's forces and cadres from abroad. Mr. Rajoub and Mr. Dahlan's men--the best trained and most disciplined forces in the PA--are the only ones considered to be "of the people."

Both Mr. Rajoub and Mr. Dahlan are charismatic local commanders who joined Mr. Arafat in Tunis after Israel deported them in 1988 for their leadership roles in the Palestinian uprising. Both have cultivated relations with the U.S., the EU and the Israeli military, and neither has assumed a direct role in the attacks against Israel over the past 15 months. Mr. Rajoub has prohibited his men from participating in terrorism and Mr. Dahlan has charged his deputy, Rashid Abu-Shabah, with taking command of the terrorist attacks his forces carry out in order to maintain a semblance of plausible deniability before the Israeli and U.S. governments.

These four men--and not Hamas--are the likely face of the Palestinian leadership in a post-Arafat era. Will they have more of an interest in ending the violence than Mr. Arafat?

The sense among the experts is that the four will be motivated to end the violence against Israel. One well-placed Israeli military source explains: "These four are going to need quiet from Israel and the United States to consolidate their power. To achieve this quiet they will have to put an end to the fighting."

Boaz Ganor, director of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Israel, believes that even if the four are unable to end the violence, the situation under their leadership will be no worse than the current one under Mr. Arafat. In his view, "Even if Arafat is assassinated, the violence will not worsen. Today the Palestinians are hitting Israel with everything they have. Arafat's departure will not impact their capabilities so even if their motivation to attack Israel rises, their ability to do so will remain constant."

Although Mr. Arafat's removal will not be a panacea to the region's woes, and while the unabated Palestinian terrorist attacks of the past 15 months make it difficult to look to the future with optimism, a future without Mr. Arafat will scarcely be worse that the present with him. And, with the proper management, it could be far better.

Ms. Glick, chief diplomatic commentator for Makor Rishon newspaper in Israel, served as assistant foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1997-98 and was a member of the Israeli negotiating team with the Palestinians from 1994-96.<hr></blockquote>
post #2 of 62
Man, you just don't give up do you...
These are political comments and can hardly be considered as facts. The first is mainly and interview with especially this last one written by the former "assistant foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Netanyahu".

Let's just look at a quote here:

"Why is Arafat loudly proclaiming his new abhorrence of the murder of civilians? Not because of international pressure; on the contrary, the U.N. Security Council last week wanted to send observers to "protect" terrorists from Israel. Only a forceful veto ordered by President Bush, who has been a stalwart ally, stopped that hypocrisy cold."

How is an international observer (not armed) gonna protect a terrorist!?!
*irony*:
Gee! good thing your proud president put a stop to that! One of those observers could have caused some serious harm... You know they actually try to OBSERVE what's happening... the horror of that. We don't need any more observations do we now... (hehe, we already know everything we need to know...)
*/irony*

Just for your information... Arafat is still the "officially elected" palestinian authority, and the removal of him by Israel would be a violation of international law.

btw: I can really understand why you don't like arafat, but why (with your anti-terror attitude) do you like Sharon this much, are you aware of other opinions inside the Israel leadership, for instance the views of foreign minster Shimon Peres? Here's some more reading from the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/16/international/middleeast/16MIDE.html" target="_blank">NYT</a>...
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #3 of 62
Gee, isn't propaganda posted as "news" wonderful. And just think - all sides get to use it.
It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
Reply
It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
Reply
post #4 of 62
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Just for your information... Arafat is still the "officially elected" palestinian authority, and the removal of him by Israel would be a violation of international law.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Israel has stated that they are not going to touch Arafat on many occasions. But they are placing blame where it needs to be placed, on those in command. So the Palestinians can now know for what reason they are under attack from Israel and who the blame sits on for the continuation of those attacks.

If a military leader in the US ran an operation independant of the Presidents knowledge and masacred an enemy while breaking international law, who would be responsible ultimately? The President, as he is the acknowledged leader of the Armed Forces (Commander In Chief). The same standards apply to Arafat (assuming he is truly not in the loop on these terrorist attacks, which I doubt).
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #5 of 62
The leadership of both countries are a joke. Neither wants real peace, they just want to get the upper hand in whatever ultimate negotiations take place so as to have the upper hand in doling out the territory. I say stop all militay aid to Israel (their arsenal is already 10x that of the Palestinians') and let em fight. Call it a war, draw the battle lines and see who comes out on top. End of conflict.

Or, they could just kill each other 15 and 20 at a time for the next 10 years. Either way the death toll will be the same. I say get it over with. These bastards don't trust each other, don't like each other and don't want to be anywhere near each other. Too much bad blood and bad history. Thinking we're going to diplomaticaly put a stop to their fueding is like thinking we're going to stop the Croatians and Serbians from hating each other. Yeah right.

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #6 of 62
To noahj:

Sure, I agree.
But I would speculated that what you use as an example has already happend several times, without the president of the US taking the blame... (like vietnam/cambodia/chile etc.)

another point:
Lets say this person was (for the sake of argument) an elected official of Panama or some other US controlled foreign area? What then? could he be held responsible for anti-US guerillas operating in panama...?

Moogs: there is one difference the serbs and croats are not killing each other like they used to... why is that?
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #7 of 62
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
Just for your information... Arafat is still the "officially elected" palestinian authority, and the removal of him by Israel would be a violation of international law.</strong><hr></blockquote>

News to me. Elected by who?
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #8 of 62
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>News to me. Elected by who?</strong><hr></blockquote>He was elected by the Palestinians as President of the Palestinian National Authority (?) a few years back.
post #9 of 62
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>
Moogs: there is one difference the serbs and croats are not killing each other like they used to... why is that?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Give it time, friend. We didn't solve anything other than getting Milosevic in front of a war crimes tribunal. Those people have been fueding for hundreds of years, won't take much to spark the next one.

Goes to the whole concept of whether or not we should be the world's police force. In cases like that we had to because of the genocidal nature of what was going on...had there been no mass graves, there would still be fighting. That won't happen in the West Bank, Gaza, etc.

Let 'em fight. That's what they really want, despite whatever lame sound-bites you hear on the news. They want victory over a hated enemy, not peace. How many times have we brought them over here and broked reasonable peace settlements? 3? 5? I've lost count, frankly. It doesn't work when you're dealing with two parties such as Israel and Palestine.

They should just have at it and one of two things will happen. Someone will "win" the war and take over the territories in question. Or they will realize after a time that no one will win and they'll stop and figure something out. Either way we shouldn't supply Israel with another penny's worth of equipement. They already have enough of an arsenal vs. what the Palestinians have. The less visible our support for Israel, the fewer enemies we make during this crisis.

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #10 of 62
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by ac2c:
<strong>Gee, isn't propaganda posted as "news" wonderful. And just think - all sides get to use it. </strong><hr></blockquote>

It's from the op ed pages you dolt.
post #11 of 62
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

News to me. Elected by who?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Remember, Arafat has TWO roles.... Chairman of the PLO, and President of the Palestinian Authority.

The latter role, which only came about fairly recently, IS the result of an election by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
post #12 of 62
If Israel is targetting terrorist their guns should be turned on their own murderous Prime Minister. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,426809,00.html" target="_blank">Sharon is a scumbag</a>

Israel *says* they aren't targetting Arafat but that was after rocket attacks took out his main office and one of his homes. I guess they were after his terrorist pets.

By refusing to recognize and listen to Arafat (although it won't last, this is a bullshit tactic they've pulled before), Sharon is basically admitting he wants war. That's what got him elected, he's a goddam warhawk and everyone knew it when they voted for him.

Israel needs to get the settlers out of Palestinian territory. There needs to be movement on the U.S. proposal of a Palestinian state.

And this all needs to happen yesterday.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #13 of 62
I really don't consider Arafat a terrorist. And idiot, yes, but not a terrorist. He has no power. His people don't believe in him. I think he should just step down and let the Palestinian hardliners run their hopes into the ground. Arafat *is* irrelevent, but that's how it has been for some time.

I think Ehud Barak tried very hard to settle with Arafat back when he was Prime Minister of Israel, and while the deal probably sounded sweet to Arafat, there are enough people who are far more ambitious than Arafat that could have swatted Arafat right out of his leadership position.

I'll tell you, Arafat is better than those that would replace him, but since Israel has already given up, it's time for Arafat to give up. Every single time he calls for the violence to stop, it just gets worse. It's time for Arafat to give up on his people too. Let the hardliners wage war they'll never win. In 10 years, if Arafat lives that long, he'll get to say I told you so to what is left of the Palestinian people.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #14 of 62
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>If Israel is targetting terrorist their guns should be turned on their own murderous Prime Minister. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,426809,00.html" target="_blank">Sharon is a scumbag</a>

Israel *says* they aren't targetting Arafat but that was after rocket attacks took out his main office and one of his homes. I guess they were after his terrorist pets.

By refusing to recognize and listen to Arafat (although it won't last, this is a bullshit tactic they've pulled before), Sharon is basically admitting he wants war. That's what got him elected, he's a goddam warhawk and everyone knew it when they voted for him.

Israel needs to get the settlers out of Palestinian territory. There needs to be movement on the U.S. proposal of a Palestinian state.

And this all needs to happen yesterday.</strong><hr></blockquote>


You did a great job taking one side there. Must have foggent all those peace talks Israel went to with Terroristfat. Then Terroristfat called for his "infatada". So it's all Israel's fault. Yea
post #15 of 62
When did I say it was all Israel's fault?

We are talking about a specific issue here, Scott H., and I'm surprised you lost touch with it so quickly considering you started the thread.

Even one side, as if you take more than one side. As if you even scrape objectivity.

Do you disagree or have a problem with anything I actually said or is it just a reaction thing?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #16 of 62
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>When did I say it was all Israel's fault?

We are talking about a specific issue here, Scott H., and I'm surprised you lost touch with it so quickly considering you started the thread.

Even one side, as if you take more than one side. As if you even scrape objectivity.

Do you disagree or have a problem with anything I actually said or is it just a reaction thing?</strong><hr></blockquote>


You just strike me as one sided.
post #17 of 62
A Safire column doesn't mean the NYT has "come out against Arafat." Safire writes an op-ed column for the NYT (and has for years), but he doesn't write any of the NYT's editorials.

Op-ed column: Newspaper hires columnist; columnist then says pretty much whatever he wants. It's the columnist's opinion.

Editorial: Usually unsigned, it represents the opinion of the newspaper's editorial board. The newspaper's "official stance."

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/14/opinion/14FRI1.html" target="_blank">This</a> is what you're looking for: the NYT's most recent editorial on Arafat.

When it comes to the Middle East, though, my man is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/05/opinion/05FRIE.html" target="_blank">Tom Friedman</a>. He tells it like it is.

P.S. I like Safire, though ... I think he's one of the better conservative commentators.

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: CaseCom ]</p>
Why am I whispering?
Reply
Why am I whispering?
Reply
post #18 of 62
Propoganda is propoganda no matter the source. Truth mixed with half truth mixed with lies all to support a specific view and to persuade neutral or third parties to take your side. The spin doctors on both sides are working very hard to justify that which can't be justified. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The problem is that neither government is willing to do the necessary things internally to stop what is happening. Both sides can proclaim how they are victims and that it is the other sides fault and nothing will be accomplished to actually stop the killing. The only end to this is if one side or the other "wins" which would mean another large number of years of warfare and terrorisim or that a third party steps in and flat tells both sides to stop "or else". There is nothing like a third party for both sides to hate to draw those two sides togeather.
It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
Reply
It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
Reply
post #19 of 62
Admittedly Arafat is no angel.

I honestly think he should step aside... its been something like 40 years he has been at this. No one has had the intensity and passion as he has, and I cannot think of the Palestinians without thinking of Arafat... I would have no idea who could replace him.

The problem is that if you get rid of him, there will surely be a power vacuum. He also knows everything inn such detail and intimacy that Palestinian future is basically dependent on him. Possible everything could collapse and get worse if he were to leave.

But there is the problem that he is definetly getting old and maybe not exactly coherent all the time. He may have taken some things TOO personally and not being objective anymore. Like a few years ago, he could have conceeded some very minor points and have better peace now, but some Palestinian critics were saying that he was getting WEAK and giving Palestine away, ble bla bla. Media didn't help when they started rubbing the point that his ego was probably getting hurt and was worried about HOW he would be remembered in history.

From what it seems, he has been taking decisions these past few years more based on how they will reflect upon [b]himself[/] in the future rather than concretely help out the situation.

This is what I have been gathering from the past few years and from talking sometimes with people of the area... and is in no way an official view.

PS. Sharon is much more dangerous to everyone that Arafat.
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
I'm having deja-vu and amnesia at the same time. I think I've forgotten this before.
Reply
post #20 of 62
I think you folks are missing a key point. Can you think of *any* political solution, speech, apology (or anything else) that will stop the average young Israeli man or young Palestinian man from wanting the other dead because each of them has lost a neighbor a friend or even a brother in the last year? It's too late for diplomacy with these people. And I agree with Groverat in the sense that the people in power in Israel right now are indeed warhawks. They may talk a big game, but what they want is any excuse they can get to pound the crap out of their enemy.

These people want to fight, not meet and shake hands. Sometimes that's just the way it is. At this point, I wager the quickest way to a lasting peace is to let them fight it out in earnest, rather than continue endlessly with these car bombings, police actions and rocket attacks. Let them do their worst to one another and either they'll figure out in a hurry they need to find another way, or they'll fight until one side surrenders.

Not trying to be insensitive. I don't like watching civilians (of any nation) die anymore than the rest of you, but it's my belief these people want war. There is so much tension and hatred built up that politicians covering it up with halk-baked peace agreements won't solve a damn thing.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #21 of 62
Unfortunately one side has an army and the atom bomb and the other side has bombs attached to terrorists. Hmm, it looks to me that a war is impractical from one side and terrorist attacks impractical from the other side. Not only do they not have a mutual ground to talk about peace, they don't have a common military/terrorist field of battle to fight on. How about a third party step in and take all the leaders into the middle of the Sinai, surround them, give them each a baseball bat and let them go at it. When it gets down to the last remaining leader - shoot him. Then maybe they can go back to the peace table. If not, repeat with the new leaders and as often as necessary.
It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
Reply
It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
Reply
post #22 of 62
Thread Starter 
Either way Arafat is irrelevant. He cannot bring peace either because he can't or wont. I think it's the latter but that's just my take on it.

Israel on the other had can (will) elect a dove in more peaceful times. Thier government is not based on the whim of a single person even now.

Too bad the Arab/Muslim world does not have a Mahatma Gandhi or a Martin Luther King. Or even a Chuchill or an Eisenhower.
post #23 of 62
[quote]Originally posted by ZO:
<strong>
PS. Sharon is much more dangerous to everyone that Arafat.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is retarded. Last year Sharon was Israel's foreign minister when Barak was attempting to negotiate with Arafat for peace at the Wye Plantation. No, Sharon was no dove. Barak was. But despite any personal misgivings Sharon may have felt, he did work for a peace that Arafat subsequently walked away from. The facts don't support your position.

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #24 of 62
First off, Arafat only started taking action AFTER Israel bombed his offices and helicopters. Palestinians understand force, not overtures.

Secondly, Arafat IS irrelevant to Israel if he did not want or could not crush Hamas and Jihad. Israel's mistake was waiting so long to demand their destruction. It should have been a precondition to peace talks.

Third, there are other Palestinian moderates who could take over but none with his visibility and support.

Fourth, our support for Israel has NOTHING to do with Bin Laden et al. We would still be involved in the mideast regardless and would still make enemies (eg, Iraq)

Fifth, Israel doesn't want to wipe out the Palestinians they want to live side by side in secure borders.

Six, if Palestinians didn't kill Israelis, Israelis wouldn't kill Palestinians. Israel only acts in defense. No violence on Arafats side means no violence on Israels side.

Last but not least, its easy for us to judge Israel when we live over here. After Sep 11, try to imagine living in that atmosphere every day, every week, every month. Can you remember the anger you felt after sep11? Imagine feeling that way every week and trying to control your anger knowing that your countries army could easily eliminate the entire population of those that are attacking you, yet you still try to work something out. Try thinking about that next time you think Israel is overreacting to the slaughter. They are trying and have been trying to work out a peaceful solution to the problem for years. The thanks they get for their troubles is a much less safe living environment. Yet they still try. I find that quite impressive. The US, or any other country would never be that patient...................................
post #25 of 62
<a href="http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_6.html" target="_blank">http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_6.html</a>

Looks like "The Irrelevan Man" just decided that he cannot win the popular opinion and is now calling for Jihad.

A Quote:
[quote]Arafat said he is willing to sacrifice 70 Palestinians to ensure the death of one Israeli. The speech was broadcast several times on PA radio. "We will defend the holy land with our blood and with our spirit," Arafat told supporters from Jerusalem. "We do not only wear uniforms; we are all military. We are all martyrs in paradise."<hr></blockquote>

Sounds like a nice level-headed thing to say. He definately wants peace...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #26 of 62
Steve 666: If Isreal (who is isreal exactly?) wants to live side by side with palestinians, why do the settlements inside Gaza exist?

AND: talking about the 11th of Sep, It is Palestinian houses and Official buildings that are beeing bombed and demolished not israeli. Try understanding their anger as well...

NoahJ: This quote is absolutly awfull i agree, but I read from the article that Arafat was talking about the defence of palestinian areas... The retoric of the leaders on both sides here is absoultly horrible, you should check out some of the Sharon quotes in Groverats link...
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #27 of 62
Shucks! I thought this thread was going to be about Algore.
post #28 of 62
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by New:
<strong>Steve 666: If Isreal (who is isreal exactly?) wants to live side by side with palestinians, why do the settlements inside Gaza exist?

AND: talking about the 11th of Sep, It is Palestinian houses and Official buildings that are beeing bombed and demolished not israeli. Try understanding their anger as well...</strong><hr></blockquote>

So this justifies the killing of women and children. Why not just evict the settlers? What's Israel supposed to do? Allow a Hamas safe house to go untouched? The US wouldn't allow an Al Quada safe house to go untouched.
post #29 of 62
Oh gee, no journalistic/poltiical bias here, even though the writer of the second article is of Jewish faith.
post #30 of 62
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Kestral:
<strong>Oh gee, no journalistic/poltiical bias here, even though the writer of the second article is of Jewish faith.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yea those Jews should shut the **** up
post #31 of 62
&gt;Steve 666: If Isreal (who is isreal exactly?) wants to live side by side with palestinians, why do the settlements inside Gaza exist?
AND: talking about the 11th of Sep, It is Palestinian houses and Official buildings that are beeing bombed and demolished not israeli. Try understanding their anger as well...
NoahJ: This quote is absolutly awfull i agree, but I read from the article that Arafat was talking about the defence of palestinian areas... &lt;

The settlements inside Gaza exist because Israel figured since the Palestinians will never trade land for peace, they are now ours. I don't happen to agree with the settlements though because they are hard to defend against attacks and if there is a land for peace deal it will be a political problem uprooting the settlers.

The Palestinian houses and official buildings are being destroyed as a result of the attacks against Israel. Like I said, no Palestinian attacks, no Israeli attacks-simple isn't it?

As for Arafats comments and your attempt to excuse them, his words are inexcusable and so are your attempts to appease a killer. Arafat talks out of both sides of his mouth and his hands are covered with blood.
.................................................. .......
post #32 of 62
[quote]talking about the 11th of Sep, It is Palestinian houses and Official buildings that are beeing bombed and demolished not israeli.<hr></blockquote>

Right, the Palestinians are going after the Israeli cabinet members in person, not their houses.

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/10/17/israel.zeevi/" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/10/17/israel.zeevi/</a>
post #33 of 62
Steve, thanks for that bit of comic relief, I needed a good laugh.

Now that I've composed myself:

[quote]First off, Arafat only started taking action AFTER Israel bombed his offices and helicopters. Palestinians understand force, not overtures.<hr></blockquote>

That's not true at all. Arrests and detentions were made by Arafat and Co., just not fast enough for Sharon's liking.

(Nice bigoted statement at the end there.)

[quote]Secondly, Arafat IS irrelevant to Israel if he did not want or could not crush Hamas and Jihad.<hr></blockquote>

What of the vast majority of Palestinians who aren't suicide bombers? You know, the people Arafat was voted in by. Do they not count?

[quote]Third, there are other Palestinian moderates who could take over but none with his visibility and support.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, which is exactly why it's a stupid move to not try and deal with him.

[quote]Fifth, Israel doesn't want to wipe out the Palestinians they want to live side by side in secure borders.<hr></blockquote>

Secure borders so long as they are flexible, moving outwards.

[quote]Six, if Palestinians didn't kill Israelis, Israelis wouldn't kill Palestinians. Israel only acts in defense. No violence on Arafats side means no violence on Israels side.<hr></blockquote>

Let's see. Israel wins a war in a big way and stays on land it had been ordered not to. They send in settlers to the Palestinian territory and refuse, despite U.S. and U.N. demands, to give back the territory.

Who is the aggressor? Not as clear cut as you'd like to make it seem.

[quote]Imagine feeling that way every week and trying to control your anger knowing that your countries army could easily eliminate the entire population of those that are attacking you, yet you still try to work something out.<hr></blockquote>

Except in Hebrew "work something out" translates to "send in rocket attacks".

Ostensibly, it would be quite easy to get peace. Remove the Israelis from Palestinian territory, pull all military forces out of Palestine. Why haven't they tried that yet?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #34 of 62
Steve, thanks for that bit of comic relief, I needed a good laugh.
Now that I've composed myself:

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
First off, Arafat only started taking action AFTER Israel bombed his offices and helicopters. Palestinians understand force, not overtures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

&gt;That's not true at all. Arrests and detentions were made by Arafat and Co., just not fast enough for Sharon's liking.
(Nice bigoted statement at the end there.)&lt;

Me: Thats a load of crap and you know it. Arafat's own henchmen wondered aloud to a NewsWeek reporter why Arafat didn't act sooner and why he waited till it was too late. He arrested people, then released him a few days later. Open your eyes. The last statement was truth, proven time and time again.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, Arafat IS irrelevant to Israel if he did not want or could not crush Hamas and Jihad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

&gt;What of the vast majority of Palestinians who aren't suicide bombers? You know, the people Arafat was voted in by. Do they not count?&lt;

Apparemtly not to Arafat.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, there are other Palestinian moderates who could take over but none with his visibility and support.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

&gt;Yes, which is exactly why it's a stupid move to not try and deal with him.&lt;

If he actually DOES what he says he will do this time, then he deserves a second and last chance.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth, Israel doesn't want to wipe out the Palestinians they want to live side by side in secure borders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

&gt;Secure borders so long as they are flexible, moving outwards. &lt;

For a conquering nation they are pretty ****ing generous.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six, if Palestinians didn't kill Israelis, Israelis wouldn't kill Palestinians. Israel only acts in defense. No violence on Arafats side means no violence on Israels side.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

&gt;Let's see. Israel wins a war in a big way and stays on land it had been ordered not to. They send in settlers to the Palestinian territory and refuse, despite U.S. and U.N. demands, to give back the territory.
Who is the aggressor? Not as clear cut as you'd like to make it seem.&gt;

If the UN ORDERED the United States to give back land to Mexico after winning their war in a big way how loud would the 'Kiss My Ass' reply be?

Why on Earth would they give back territory without a gaurantee of security? What country in the world would ever do that? Whats the matter-some Jews who are tired of being pushed around makes you nervous? Maybe Israelis are tired of the poor, weak Jewish persona that the World loves so much. Israelis have the same right as every other country to live in peace and security. The United Nations doesn't give a shit about Israel and they know it-Israel will sign a peace treaty that THEY want, not the UN. As for the settlers, I personally believe it was a mistake but lets face it, the peaceniks lost out to the Right Wing in Israel with the election of Menachim Begin. That was the result of years of the Palestinians refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist. Reap what you sow.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine feeling that way every week and trying to control your anger knowing that your countries army could easily eliminate the entire population of those that are attacking you, yet you still try to work something out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

&gt;Except in Hebrew "work something out" translates to "send in rocket attacks".
Ostensibly, it would be quite easy to get peace. Remove the Israelis from Palestinian territory, pull all military forces out of Palestine. Why haven't they tried that yet? &lt;

That would give them peace? That would stop Palestinian suicide attacks? The Palestinian territories were put under Palestinian Authority in the first phase of the peace talks. Didn't work out so well for Israel did it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
post #35 of 62
[quote]Thats a load of crap and you know it. Arafat's own henchmen wondered aloud to a NewsWeek reporter why Arafat didn't act sooner and why he waited till it was too late.<hr></blockquote>

Act on what? You can't arrest suicide bombers, they're already dead.
Arafat doesn't have the power to shut down the jihad movement, why hold him responsible for that?

[quote]He arrested people, then released him a few days later.<hr></blockquote>

Do we know of any specifics on any of those? Was a suicide bomber arrested and released?

[quote]Open your eyes. The last statement was truth, proven time and time again.<hr></blockquote>

If you take that attitude then the exact same logic can be applied to the Israelis, except they don't listen to the U.N. and U.S., or even to force.

[quote]Apparemtly not to Arafat.<hr></blockquote>

Explain.

[quote]If he actually DOES what he says he will do this time, then he deserves a second and last chance.<hr></blockquote>

Here are the options:
Deal with Arafat and let him extend all the power he has. Push him too far and he will lose all power. Then the radicals take over, then there is war.

Which is fine, if war is the goal then war is the goal. This sanctimony and "attempts" at creating peace make me sick. It's a sheepshow.

[quote]For a conquering nation they are pretty ****ing generous.<hr></blockquote>

Howso? By occupying territory they were told not to? By illegally forcing themselves on territory that's not theirs, and then firing rockets at those who try and get them off their territory?

Might makes right?

[quote]If the UN ORDERED the United States to give back land to Mexico after winning their war in a big way how loud would the 'Kiss My Ass' reply be?<hr></blockquote>

Conjecture.
If my Aunt Sally had a dick she'd be Uncle Steve.

[quote]Why on Earth would they give back territory without a gaurantee of security?<hr></blockquote>

What the hell does that even mean?

[quote]Whats the matter-some Jews who are tired of being pushed around makes you nervous?<hr></blockquote>

The Jews aren't getting pushed around by anyone. They beat the shit out of the Arabs multiple times, they can handle themselves. Palestine is no occupation threat to Israel.

What's the matter, some Palestinians who are tired of being pushed around makes you nervous?

[quote]Maybe Israelis are tired of the poor, weak Jewish persona that the World loves so much.<hr></blockquote>

?

[quote]Israelis have the same right as every other country to live in peace and security.<hr></blockquote>

Yet they do quite a bit to make sure they don't have it. No one deserves terrorist attacks, but I'll shed no tears as long as they illegally occupy someone else's territory.

[quote]The United Nations doesn't give a shit about Israel and they know it<hr></blockquote>

The U.N. CREATED Israel!
Israel is the U.S.'s biggest welfare baby. We ship them money and guns like Santa on Christmas. They killed American soldiers and we told them, "Don't worry about it, happens to the best of us."
The most the U.N. has done is tell them to get out of land that isn't theirs. They don't comply, so the U.N. throws up its hands.

[quote]As for the settlers, I personally believe it was a mistake but lets face it, the peaceniks lost out to the Right Wing in Israel with the election of Menachim Begin. That was the result of years of the Palestinians refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist. Reap what you sow.<hr></blockquote>

Israel beat the Arabs quite soundly in multiple wars. They are not in danger of losing their nation, only in danger from terrorism. Occupying other people's land with your settlers and military is not a way to combat terrorism.

And your use of "was" is idiotic, it IS a mistake. It's going on now. They are still there and they impose themselves on the Palestinians every day.

[quote]That would give them peace? That would stop Palestinian suicide attacks? The Palestinian territories were put under Palestinian Authority in the first phase of the peace talks. Didn't work out so well for Israel did it?<hr></blockquote>

Land was taken from Palestinians to create Israel, it's understandable that having their holy sites taken from them might upset them a little. That was 50 years ago.

Times change, and so do attitudes. Israel is not going away and only the hardest of the hardliners still think Israel will be pushed into the sea.

The gripe now amoung the young Muslims (which makes up the terrorist movement) is Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and American involvement in the Middle East. Those are the issues, NOT Israel's right to exist. It's a bully pulpit that is obsolete.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #36 of 62
[quote]Originally posted by groverat:
<strong>Ostensibly, it would be quite easy to get peace. Remove the Israelis from Palestinian territory, pull all military forces out of Palestine. Why haven't they tried that yet?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sounds easy enough, but the problem with that piece of conjecture is that every time Israel does pull back it's military there are more bombings and shootings. The last couple have been just in times that you describe. Israel pulled back and the next couple of day if not the very next day there was another bombing. I think that the suicide bombers and those that send them count as the hardliners who want to see Israel not just pushed into the sea, but as a nation forgotten. Israel will not pull back it's military for that reason and many others.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #37 of 62
Thread Starter 
It's that whole thing where Arafat wants to push the Jews into the Sea.
post #38 of 62
[quote]Too bad the Arab/Muslim world does not have a Mahatma Gandhi or a Martin Luther King.<hr></blockquote>

A Mahatma Gandhi? An MLK? What? I really can't believe you said that Scott!. but I guess you did. Give me a day/week to recover...

:eek: :eek:
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #39 of 62
The same kind of rhetoric came from Israel's .gov (until one of the Israel hardliners was assassinated).

Arafat said that when? In the 70s, back when he was actually a terrorist type?

They pulled back, but never out of Palestinian territory. How sweet of them to give a little back.

There is more than one side to this issue. Until people start seeing that there will be no peace.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #40 of 62
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>

A Mahatma Gandhi? An MLK? What? I really can't believe you said that Scott!. but I guess you did. Give me a day/week to recover...

:eek: :eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>

Recover from what? Where are the Muslim/Arab peace protesters? There aren't any as far as I can tell.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Irrelevant Man