Kill Arafat
 

>snip< From Drudge Report
Jerusalem Post Editorial: Kill Arafat
Thu Sep 11 2003 22:11:57 ET

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.
>snip<

You go boys.

Yes, I'm sure this is the plan to bring about peace in the Middle East.
[/sarcasm]

Just how many buses would we let blow up in our country, knowing where the terrorists reside, before we reached out and touched them?

We tried this already, actually. I don't know how well you remember, but our Popular Wartime Preznit went on TV two years ago and said that he would capture Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive." It's been 722 days since that statement, and guess what? He's still out there. So's Mullah Omar (and most of the rest of his Taliban leadership). So, for that matter, is Saddam Hussein. My point here is that I tend to take "we gonna git you, sucker!" statements with a shaker or three of NaCl.

Perhaps even more to the point is that the U.S. is constrained in ways that Israel is not. Israel has no law against assassinating foreign leaders. The United States does, though, and the President may not violate the law. I think we passed that law once upon a when because if we start killing foreign leaders, how long will it be before other countries start finding ways to kill ours?
Assassination as a form of political expression is a bad idea all 'round.

How many attacks have we had in our country in those 722 days?? He's doing something right!!

Damn straight!! Like I said we're reaching out and touching. But we expect Israel not to. Wrong, go to it.

i know...let's have more peacetalks. That has worked very well. We could build a campfire and sing kumbaya. That would be great. Idiots.

Kill you enemies.

LSD

how many attacks were there before 9/11?

Well, there's the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen and the first attack on the WTC. Is that not enough for you??

I would of smote the terrorists on just those!

We are not pushing people of of their homes and building new settlements either. Israel has created over 80 new settlements since 9 11, how many more people were evicted from the very houses that their grandparents built?

You push me out of my house, you better believe I will attack you.

Has everyone forgotten how the IRA situation was resolved? After decade upon decade upon decade of each side slaughtering each other in revenge killings they sat down and hammered out a just policy that no one liked but that everyone could live with.

Neither Israel or Palestine is yet willing to let themselves live without an immediate enemy (sorta like the neo-con's in the U.S., they have to have something to fear).

I do believe that if the Pal's ever took up Tom Clancy's idea (from Sum of All Fears) of going Ghandi-esque on Israel it might be possible to resolve this within the next 25 years.

It takes a great deal of courage to take that step and sustain that movement. i.e., it won't happen.

2Wolves

The Palestinians or even Arafat dont have any reasons to be angry:

United Nations "Partition Plan" to the Palestinians:
You are going to have 47% of the 100% which was originally yours.

"Oslo Agreement" to the Palestinians:
You are going to have 22% of the 100% which was originally yours.

Barak's "Generous Offer" to the Palestinians:
We are going to give you 80% of 22% of 100% of the land which was originally yours.

Sharon's "Peace Plan" to the Palestinians in 2000:
We are going to give you 42% of 80% of 22% of 100% of the land which was originally yours, and this 42% will remain under continuous curfew.

"Zionists" to the Palestinians:
According to our version of the Bible you are entitled to 0% of 42% of 80% of 22% of 100% of the land which was originally yours.

The "Road Map" to the Palestinians that Bush envisions:
If
• you stop your resistance to the occupation (which we call terrorism),
• your refugees give up their right of return to their ancestral homes,
• you agree to only elect officials acceptable to US and Israeli administrations,
• you agree to lock up all your resistance fighters,
• you agree to outlaw all Palestinian movements and organizations that oppose US/Israeli policies,
• you agree to drive your cars only on roads that Sharon assigns for your use,
• you do not object to the 'wall' that Sharon is building,
• you agree not to claim Jerusalem as your capital,
• you agree that your children's school curriculum only includes courses and books approved by the Israeli government,
• you agree not to give birth to more than three children per family,
• you become more tolerant to Israeli settlers who are confiscating your homes and lands because they are doing it out of the religious belief that they are fulfilling God's promise, and
• you accept Israeli policy of punishing the families of those who resist the occupation which includes demolishing their parents' homes then Sharon will remove the sanctions on your territory, improve your living conditions under Israeli occupation and he might in the far future consider negotiating with you on the 42% of 80% of 22% of 100% of the land which was originally yours.


Its horrible that theres killing going on both sides. Its a shame that it has become a place of danger. (I've been 24 times and if your into history; there's allot of fascinating things there) Its even worse to think that this wont at some point affect the entire planet from its cascade of influence.

The bottom line get the settlements of the land. ALL settlements. I hear the same thing over and over "well they've moved a few" "many were dismantled", etc. Yeah; OK. and?

The common theme comes up that Israel and America are unliked in the UN. We didnt get support to enforce the broken resolution of Iraq. Is there anyone here that is a supporter of double standards?

Resolution 106
Resolution 111
Resolution 127
Resolution 162
Resolution 171
Resolution 228
Resolution 237
Resolution 248
Resolution 250
Resolution 251
Resolution 252.
Resolution 256
Resolution 259
Resolution 262
Resolution 265
Resolution 267
Resolution 270
Resolution 271
Resolution 279
Resolution 280
Resolution 285
Resolution 298
Resolution 313
Resolution 316
Resolution 317
Resolution 332
Resolution 337
Resolution 347
Resolution 425
Resolution 427
Resolution 444
Resolution 446
Resolution 450
Resolution 452
Resolution 465
Resolution 467
Resolution 468
Resolution 469
Resolution 471
Resolution 476
Resolution 478
Resolution 484
Resolution 487
Resolution 497
Resolution 498
Resolution 501
Resolution 509
Resolution 515
Resolution 517
Resolution 518
Resolution 520
Resolution 573
Resolution 587
Resolution 592
Resolution 605
Resolution 607
Resolution 608
Resolution 636
Resolution 641
Resolution 672
Resolution 673
Resolution 681
Resolution 694
Resolution 726
Resolution 799
(imcomplete list)
(geneva convention violations also not listed)

I ask this because I dont know- THose who link the Palestinians to 911 obviously have info that I didnt read so it would be greatif you could pass it on. How many of the hijackers were Palestinian?

I was watching CNN that morning. My friend called me right after the first plane struck. I was glued to the TV for the next 2 days. 2 1/2 hours after the towers collapsed I saw footage of Palestinians dancing with joy in the sunlight passing out candy and generally happy about the attack.

If anyone saw it when I did; did you notice what so many including myself missed?

The obvious didnt dawn on me until much later because I was so angry and upset. I have since written CNN 7 times and still have yet to receive any reply.




At least the Native Americans were allowed to build casinos.

Sun Tzu,

That's a very one sided and incomplete presentation of the situation, which I would like to address when I get back from dinner. ;)

The last post; I agree with you Labell may be one-sided; and from the most unlikely person. There were times it was relatively safe for westerners to visit Israel; but then again most of the Palestinians I met were Christians (not downing Muslims). I know my appearance alone would get me killed there now (the PT) I come from a family of conservative republicans. All my time in the military I hated (admittingly I was prejudice against arabs) But I interpret things much differently now. To the point I dont even speak to some of my family members.

If your referring to the one side being my lack of acknowledgement of people getting murdered in the buses. I do and have in many other threads. Its wrong and its terrible. But inthe overall scheme of things I have extreme difficulty in seeing how the sitauation is not being one-sided in the other direction.

Lets take away every element except the settlements. Sharon knows what the territories are. He knows the boundry lines as the stand; AT THE PRESENT. The fact that settlements exist with full protection makes a very specific and straightforward statement. The fact this is allowed to continue with the expectation that they should bend over; take what the inevitable is with a smiles on their faces seems one-sided to me.

I do my best to always see both side of any issue; I really do; but I have great difficulty in this area. It may be incomplete, but I've posted so many links between here and TFP 3. Ive come to the conclusion that when opinoins are voiced here they are ones that arent going to change because the info is out there and hopefully they've done some research and what they're stating is their interpretation of where the situation is.

THe above is my opinion and I hope all take it as such; oppose to me pointing and stating this is the way YOU should be seeing things. I've tried to make posts in the past that tell both sides such as the Zionist immigrants legally buying land from the arabs vs taking it; and numerous other issues; but I start tittering into an area that annoys the piss out of me when others do so in my direction when not asked:give an unwelcomed history lesson; especially when its a version that seems to come from biased sources.

I appologize if I sound one sided, also for making assumptions in reguards to other members, I get annoyed when the link of 911 is brought up and some important issues just seem to be ignored. My skills of diplomatic debate need allot of work.


By the way reference to what I saw on CNN: On its first airing the clip of the Palestinians dancing in the street-

How can there be daylight on 2 sides of the Earth at the same time.

Here's another perspective on the cheering palestinians:
http://www.labournet.net/world/0109/cnn1.html

Celebrating Palestinians: CNN scene was actually staged
Report by Rania Masri
Published: 27/09/01

Labournet Germany confirms this account, adding that Der Spiegel refers to the earlier false claims, which were retracted, that the footage shown on 11 September was actually recycled from 1991.

Though we now know CNN manipulated this footage, other commentators opposed to the war do address the fact that the terrorist attacks did have some public support. See e.g. Black Tuesday: The View From Islamabad - GD.

Hello,

The following information came to me via the Buddhist Peace Fellowship listserve. I think it is of interest to you. I visited both links and can confirm the substance of the message below: the full video clearly shows the same group from 9/11; they are a small group of about six or seven children, one woman, and two or three young men being urged to act cheerful in front of a camera. The cameraman can be seen handing out treats.

Many people are passing by in the background without giving any notice to the event, which is obviously not some sort of rally. You have to wait all the way to the end of the video to see the whole footage.

It is quite stunning that such footage would be utilized by TV channels and mainstream print media across the US, and beyond. The consequences of using this footage are clear (not implying that these consequences were planned) : further dehumanization of Palestinians and Arabs and furthering xenophobia in the US.

Rania Masri

Indy Media:

“Celebrating Palestinians”: Scene WAS ACTUALLY staged (english)

by Juergen 3:02am Tue Sep 25 ‘01 (Modified on 3:54am Tue Sep 25 ‘01)

A few days ago a Brazilian student, Marcio, claimed CNN was showing old scenes of celebrating Palestinians, claiming they were celebrating the WTC disaster. Well, the scenes were not old, but were manipulated!

In a recent statement CNN insisted that the famous footage was shot on the day of the WTC blast. Meanwhile, German reporters of the prestigious “Panorama” TV magazine investigated how the scenes were shot. What they found out was amazing. On German TV they aired, supposedly for the first time, parts of the entire 4-minute footage not previously shown.

It became clear that a person was animating a couple of children to cheer in front of the camera. The woman cheering was offered a candy to act cheerful. She later said she was shocked that her pictures were shown in the context of the terrorist attacks. She had no idea what they were for. A total view of the scene shows a street largely full of at best apathic people doing business as usual. Only a handful of people standing in front of the camera are celebrating.

You can see the video online on http://www.ndrtv.de/panorama/sendung/index.html. The link is below the second picture and in German. But you can still see the pictures in the report. Forward to 7 minutes 45 seconds and watch it until the end.

Furthermore, the highly regarded German magazine “Der Spiegel” has had an article on this. The article shows the picture of the woman getting candy and another one people showing more people in the background of the cheering kids. These people are passing by as usual.

Read the article

Unfortunately, in German as well. You can still see the pictures, though.

Here’s a little synapses of the article in Der Spiegel (titled “What is the truth?”):

Der Spiegel reports on the analysis conducted by Panorama. They point out that the pictures that went around the world only showed close-ups, never the whole street full of people celebrating. What Panorama found out, when watching the whole thing, was that there were shots of the street surrounding the cheering groups. These shots indicated that there were only a handful of people cheering while the majority of people passed by without participating (the second picture in the Spiegel article shows that).

You can muffle the drum, and you can loosen the strings of the lyre, but who shall command the skylark not to sing? ~Khalil Gibran

Yowsa! That's kooky!

The sooner the better, he is a terrorist and the US should be helping them kill him not constraining them.

Manifest Destiny; the glorious expansion of the US. I wonder how many settlers were butchered by Native Americans. Would you consider someone such as Geronimo a terrorist? What does that word mean to you; what does that word mean to anyone anymore. I know the FBI has a definition; its not one that any country on this planet is free of. So does it boil down to a "See ya wouldnt want to be ya" philosophy. DO you consider Sharon a hero? Im not downing you for your opinion nor Im a anyone to state your wrong for having the opinion and beliefs you carry; Im just trying to understand.

This has been posted many times; but always carries relevance in this discussion

www.seruv.org.il/defaulteng.asp

Sun Tzu: yes, Geranimo was a terrorist. Happy now? :)

By the way... why is it that some people say that only a few Palestinians want to hurt the Israeli's (justified by the occupation), while it's always "Israel" as a whole that gets blamed for the actions of it's army or settlers or Sharon? Not every Palestinian agrees with Hamas, nor every Israeli with Sharon.

As for this plan: It'd certainly be doing *something* instead of trying to slap yet another peace plan on the region, when we know beforehand that it simply will not work. How many times do you try to talk before you actually DO something? I'm not saying that killing Arafat is necessarily a good thing, nor even a wise thing to do, mind you.

The link doesnt work. I have it on VHS as I taped straight for 2 days with the time and date showing. I sent a copy to CNN asking for an explanation with 6 follow ups- they stated they never recieved it initially. I stated it was sent certified and gave the persons name via accpetance. I got the run around, sent letters, called, and finally gave up realizing that it really doesnt matter whatever person or persons of power allowed this to happen either did it intentionally or just dont care. IMO that acts like this are nothing more than a slap to the face and are insulting to the American public.

Mooooooooooo

No Dragonlich Im not happy; I wish the world was in a different place. I especially find it ironic that (according to their religion) two cultures that supposedly were born of the same father want to kill one another. I certainly hope there are Palestinians that dont agree with Hamas or Israelis that dont agree with Sharon; that means that maybe there is still a chance a small hope that one day they wont see one another as enemies; just people.

I think if Arafat is killed its going to open Pandoras box. Does Israel have the right to defend itself; ofcourse it does. Does it have have a right to exsist in a secure environment; who doesnt?
If it continues the same policy in reguards to allow Israeli expansion in land designated for the Palestinians can it or should it expect any thing different other than whats happening. Am I saying that I agree with either side destroying itself; no.

Yes I agree Geronimo was a terrorist; do you think he had any reason to resort to such tactics? and Why?


I know its a little late, but I have to appologize to everyone in the thread here. It seems I fell to my open trap once again. I promised myself I wouldnt post in threads about Israel / Palestine anymore and occasionally I still do. It would appear all I have to offer such threads is more friction and theres more than enough of that to go around. Everyone has access to whatever information they're looking for and dont need me force posting it. I respect everyone's views, and I hope someday things work out for everyone. Now that I've regrouped I'll repsectfully bow out of this thread.

Use of force... that's a new approach to the Israel/Palestine-problem.:rolleyes:

wow Sun tzu, you are a greater wo/man than most. Refraining from talking about something you care/know so much about...muy impressemente.

Israel sure would gain a lot by offing a Nobel Peace Prize winner, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

Look, two things need to happen for there to be peace in Israel. First, and most important, settlement building must stop, and existing settlements must be removed. Second, the Palestinians must abrogate the right of return.

Both Israel and the Palestinians must realize that radical factions on both sides have no interest in peace, since they derive their power from the strife in the region. To let these radicals prevail is the height of stupidity.

Arafat is a joke of human being and a leader, and I laugh at the fact that he is a nobel peace prize winner. He has done more to destabilize the region then Israel ever could, except maybe if you argue that Israel helped create the beast.

Israel didnt help create the beast, it CREATED the beast.

Oh, this is a fucking great idea. Really it is. Let's kill a popular leader in a highly volatile nation-state, thereby making him a martyr and inciting those who followed him into a towering, murderous rage. You'll be able to hear the explosions for miles and miles, I tell you. And there will be a lot of explosions.

Frankly, I don't know what to actually do about Arafat. He's certainly not helping things. And the Israel-Palestine issue certainly is well beyond simple solutions. But what I can tell you is that simply "solving" the problem by offing Arafat is probably the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas. You do not combat terrorism by creating new terrorists - and killing Arafat will give Hamas all the fresh, willing, and highly-pissed volunteers it will ever need.

Whose fucking stupid-ass idea was this, anyway?

Its like dissing your own family... you may not like them at times, but if someone else says shit you best be ready to throw down. I know that Arafat isn't even all that popular among Palestinian's, but if Israel tries to fuck with him shit will get even more fucked up.

This is just a unteneble position for the Palestinians to take. It's just unimaginable that they should give away their claim to something that was rightfully theirs, and then was stolen/demolished. It would ease the conflict, but it will not happen.

Just a question to toss out there. Does it really matter who rules this crappy piece of land? For example lets call it "The Holy Land", now if there is nothing blowing up, doesn't anyone have access to it? Don't Palestinians live in Israel now? Wouldn't be just another country with multiple religous convictions? It's the stacking of bodies that is the problem.

Anyway, I did say I was going to reply to Sun Tzu, so here it is (just not in huge depth).

Sun,

My problem with your post is that it does not look at the historical dynamics and facts relating to the Jews, Palestinians, and the creation of Isreal.

It would be one thing if there had always been a Palestinian state and it was the Jews that went in and were killing off Palestinians, but that isn't the case.

No, to understand where we are now in the middle east, you have to look at several thousand years of history, culminating with the collapse of the Ottoman empire, the British occupation, the proposed partitioning of Palestine, and all the wars that have been fought between the Israel and its Arab neighbors.

To make the (simplistic) statement that today's troubles are a result of the Jews "stealing the Palestinian's land" ignores the complex realities of the situation.

Somebody would have to govern it. If Jews, as they do now, governed it they would make (and do) everyone else [non-jews] second class citizens. If Muslims ruled, they would make the jews second class citizens. Who owns the land is of vital signifance for those living there

In news related directly to this thread

Israeli VP says killing Arafat a possibility

Here is a scenario for you. Say it is the year 3003 and Canada became this great power and started moving into our land saying it was their holy land. We are a third world nation now and do not have a huge military. France is a huge superpower and funds Canada for years. Eventually we are pushed back to California. This is where we make our last stand. George W Bush VI is president and he is trying to keep what little land we have left. France offers us Watts as a peace agreement if we stop fighting. Canada tells Bush to dismantle our militia because they are terrorists that are attacking their people.

Are we in the wrong? As Americans would we support Bush into bending over and taking it in the rear? As Bush, would you decide to dismantle the only soldiers you have left trying to keep your land?

I know this is a bit of an extreme example but I think most of you are a bit to far out of the area to really know what is going on. You only know what you see on the media and are not thinking about what is going on and what the history is over there.

Your scenario Dark is extremely general and it doesn't accurately portray what has happened in Israel.

How does it differ?

Interesting that you build a scenario that is not analogous and then say that people here are not thinking of the history over there.

Anyway, I'll play :D

My problems with your analogy are thus:

-"Canada" is not an identifiable group or culture; it is a nation composed of different cultures.

-Even if it were, there is no historical claim to the US being it's 'holy land'.

-There has never been an appreciable "Canadian" culture or nation within current US borders.

-US does not shell Montreal or blow up passenger buses in Vancouver.

-The US has always recognized Canada's right to exist and has not tried to destroy it and "Canadian" culture.


In contrast:

-There has never been a nation of "Palestine". There has however been a historical Israel as well as an Ottoman empire.

-There have always been Jews in the region known as Palestine.

-The Jews that moved to Palestine in the 20's and 30's bought the land they live on. When the Arabs in the region saw their growing numbers, they attacked the Jews and descriminated against them.

-When the British was leaving the region (after having occupied it after the collapse of the Ottoman empire), they tried to make room for everyone. Had the Palestinians and other Arabs accepted the UN partition, they would have recieved HALF of what is now Israel.

-Isreal has tried for numerous peace treaties with their Arab neighbors since 1948. In response, they have been attacked 4 more times. In the first 2 of those wars (1956 and 1967), the stated goal was the TOTAL DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL.

-After each conflict, it was the Palestinians who willingly left their homes for Jordan and Syria, confident that the next Arab attack would drive back the Israelis.

-Where Arab nations have been willing to sign peace treaties and recognize the Israelis right to exist, Israel has ceased all military action and returned land captured during those conflicts.

----------------------------

Now, for my own caveauts.

Frankly, I don't know what to do about the middle east. Sometimes I think the Israelis really need to step back and see what is the best way to get what they want: peace.

I do not think some of the things they are doing is conductive to that.

This includes building new settlements in areas that are nominally slated for an independent Palestinian state.

But to claim that Israel is the sole or primary agressor here ignores over 50 years of history.

After WWII you had a mass upheavel of Jews from the Holocaust, they had no home to return too. So people start thinking of a place for them to go. I believe one idea was Brazil (could be wrong, don't quote me), or in the British territory of Palestine where the Zionist movement had been buying land for almost a century. So obviously they settle on The Holy Land because as Jews they have historical ties to it, plus at this point it is not heavily settled by anyone. So the U.N. gets involved they have two idea's on have to divide the land Partition it (which the Palestinian inhabitants refuse) or to make one state (which the Jews reject). So blah blah... they decide to partition the land, civil war insues.

Israel was fending for itself, where as the Palestinians were backed with the Arab league of Nations. After the Declaration of Israel in 48' the War was no longer a civil war when 5 regular Arab armies came to aid the Palestinians (Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan). President Truman took it upon himself to at least give the Israeli's political support by recognizing the state.


We didn't start aiding Israel until the 50's when all of the Arab joined the Soviet camp. Israel took some gains after they were attacked in 48' because they had the upper hand and seized the oppurtunity. They took more gains in 56' after they were attacked. Israel got even more lands in 67' after Egypt succesfully provoked them (would turn out to be unsuccesful for the Egyptians), now they had lands in Gaza, the SUez Canal, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights.

Arafat is not some morally righteous leader. He has amassed a personal fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Take a look at what he did to Lebanon (wasn't all him, but his prescence did not help the situation). Jordan nearly crumbled under the presence of the PLO.

Its tough to say if things could've been different had certain things happened or not happened. If the Arabs (non-Palestinian Arabs) never would've gotten involved, I can guarentee things would be a hell of alot different. It is very very naive and easy to solely blame Israel and America for everything that has happened there.

*Damnit Lebell beat me too it :( *

Yassar Arafat is beneath contempt. I was in Lebannon whenthat Bastard and his people in the PLO were massacring people and claiming the same kind of BS oppression he does now. The smell is the same, just the clothes have changed. The man is a pig, plain and simple. He has a net worth in the tens of millions while his people languish. Just like every other Muslim sultan or shiek, he cares nothing for his people and uses them only as cannon fodder and tools to achieve self-aggrandizement. Arafta should not be killed, however. He would be far too useful to those of his ilk dead at the hands of the Israelis. But don't think for a minute that he may not end up dead anyway at the hands of his own entourage who can easily blame it on the Israelis. I suggest that they either exile him to some incredibly small island somewhere and let jim live out the rest of his days while providing weekly update photos to show he is still alive, or ship him off to Saudi and let them deal with him. The problem is, nobody wants this lunatic running around loose in the world where he can challenge other countries and stir up trouble. Jordan doesn't want him, Syria won't have him and he is useless as anything but a terrorist in any venue he is placed. The Arabs need to absorb the "Palestinians" and the Israelis need to bannish and isolate him.

JUst found this of the net, some good shit on this morally righteous leader.
http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/arafat.html#howdid

Here are a few snips since the page is rather lengthy...

Yasser Arafat, Fatah's leader, has claimed that he was born in Jerusalem. That may or may not be true. What is known is that he was brought up and educated in Egypt after his parents had emigrated from Palestine. It is important to note that they were NOT "refugees" or "exiles." They had simply moved to Egypt in the 1920s ... more than twenty years BEFORE the State of Israel came into existence! So if Yasser wants to fix blame where it belongs, he should be cursing on his parents' graves for making the choice to leave Palestine and stop blaming the Jews of Palestine who chose to stay and create a Jewish State.

Arafat's actual name was Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini. He shortened it to obscure his kinship with the notorious Nazi and ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini."
-----------
According to the Jewish Press (March 14 1997) a tape of Arafat recorded by the Israeli Secret Service, ordering the execution of 2 American diplomats (Cleo Noel and George Moore) was given to the State Department. Sid Zion in the New York Daily News wrote:

"To treat Arafat like a statesman when you have him taped ordering the killing of American diplomats makes one wonder what John Gotti is doing in jail, forget about Jonathan Pollard!"

On the night of March 2, 1973, PLO gunmen pumped 40 bullets into the bodies of the US ambassador to Sudan and two other diplomats held hostage at the Saudi embassy in Khartoum.
Almost exactly 24 years later, the man who ordered the killings was warmly received in Washington DC by the leader of the American people.

US ambassador Cleo Noel, US charge d'affaires George Curtis Moore, and Belgian charge d'affaires Guy Eid were among a group of diplomats held hostage by eight members of Yasser Arafat's Black September a faction of the PLO during a reception at the Saudi embassy in the Sudanese capital. The terrorists demanded the release of Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, the Palestinian assassin of Robert Kennedy, as well as other Palestinians being held in Israel and European prisons.

After President Richard Nixon refused to negotiate, Arafat's commander, Abu Iyad, in touch with the terrorists by high-frequency transmitter from PLO headquarters in Beirut, gave the instruction "Remember Nahr al-Bard. The people's blood in the Nahr al-Bard cries out for vengeance. We and the rest of the world are watching you." The radio messages were intercepted by Israeli intelligence, and transcripts later handed to the US State Department and Nixon.

"Nahr al-Bard", a reference to a terrorist training facility in Lebanon which had been attacked by Israeli troops 11 days earlier, was the code phrase ordering the gunmen to execute their hostages. At 9:06 pm on March 2, Noel, Moore and Eid were taken to the embassy basement, lined up against the wall and shot. "The terrorists fired from the floor upward, to prolong their agony of their victims by striking them first in the feet and legs, before administering the coup de grace," wrote Neil Livingstone and David Halevy in Inside the PLO (New York: Quill/William Morrow, 1990).

A few minutes later, Beirut PLO headquarters again radioed the terrorists. This time it was Arafat himself at the microphone. The PLO chairman asked whether the "Nahr al-Bard" code word had been understood. He was assured the instruction had already been carried out.
------
The Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has salted away billions of pounds for the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in secret foreign bank accounts and investments, including property in London. The disclosure about the hidden wealth of his PLO comes amid deepening economic hardship in his Gaza and West Bank fiefdoms.
...The disclosures are also likely to prompt international donors, including the European Union countries, to ask why Mr Arafat is still demanding aid for his Palestinian authority. Nor will they have been impressed by his decision to invite Slobodan Milosevic, Yugoslavia's president, to Bethlehem.

- Tom Gross, London Sunday Telegraph, December 5, 1999

I wont make this long just a statement and a question. The statement is for any that will include this in their processing when reading what you have provided and the question to is to help me to understand.

I read through a portion of the site you provided and its plainly obvious that it is a Zionist site. (or what I think Zionsm is)


Im confused about what Zionism is I suppose. I know there is a large portion of the Jewish population that is against what they're perceiving it to be. What is Zionism? Do you support the philosophy of Zionsm?

Zionism WAS people back in the 19th century who were pushing for a Jewish home land where present day Israel is. I don't know if it stands for the something today.

When I got to the site and arrived at the conclusion that was (what I consider a clear cut example of the Zionist mindset) I attempted to look to see if it provided its outlook on Ariel Sharon. With its descriptive documentation on Arafat I gathered it must have info on him. It does indeed and other "heroes of the homeland" the link to him kept failing so I wasnt able to see. If you can get it to work could you please post. If Im right in my guess after posting the history they have of him; I will be able to show you what Zionism is.

Sun Tzu, do you have any information that would disprove the story Mojo posted? If you do, please post it; if you don't, then don't dismiss it simply because you think it's "zionist" propaganda, or whatever.

/thanks.

What does IMO mean to you Dragonlich? Id would be great to speak to anyone that has had first hand experience or has been there with anything anyone talks about here. Do we need to really have this conversation because take the same standard and apply to it everyone including yourself. The small problem is the common agreement that conservatives own this and liberals that, arabs this; zionists that. Theres been a few threads about media bullshit; yet its all we have unless ofcourse you've been there to see any event. I do agree with one sign the site had; CNN lies. Do I want to go into a lengthy list of showing what your asking for, no because I know your intelligent enough to choose what information your going top believe and what your not. The site gives a detailed history of Arafat. My point isnt disputing whether the info it has is false (although some may be after reading other areas) but does it provide a foundation of credability by providing the truth on the other side or put Sharon on a pedestal as a saint. I was asking only for a copy and paste of the info on Sharon to be posted from the same source the info on Arafat was provided.

I’m going to point out a source any time I see it being totally biased in any direction Zionist, PLO, BLOW, SLOPPY JOE

That argument has been brought up before "prove it". . . can anyone prove anything here? I’m confident I can prove this to be a biased site, I don’t really need to because like I frequently say IMO---which seems to be the thing I need to do every third word when you’re reading my posts. Yeah I was a troll for posting dumb pictures of fake WMD, and I apologized for it.

Your same argument or point can be used in any direction, I wont doubt you'll probably call me on that providing some footage with Arafat lighting a fuse or caught in the act, maybe even CIA documents that have become declassified.

Notice I’m careful to always put phrases such as IMO, as I interpret, and so on specifically for people such as yourself that might take the things I say as a self proclaimed google expert in anything you want to know. I'd really like that be assumed; because in support of what you've stated very few of us have been in any scenario personally on the subjects we feel were educating everyone in. Please understand some of the things I state about this issue (Israel) I didn’t get from the net, or a book I’ve been there many times to just about every part of it, so I feel I have some good experience to draw my own interpretation of what’s going on.

Whenever I post a source I attempt to go as deep as possible (who funded it; their sources of info) to make sure it as neutral as possible; should everyone else do it? Each to their own I’m not telling anyone what they should do, but if it’s a subject I have some knowledge of and I see the potential distortions (or what I see as) I going to state it.

Whether or not it’s the words you’re putting in my mouth "propaganda" will also be each to their own as well. The point I was making is what Labell justifiably pointed out and called me on; this site X 1000.

There’s been other occasions where I wanted to reply with a similar statement, but didn’t so I will now. Everything is my opinion or interpretation. To let you know ahead I may fall short of putting IMO at the end of each sentence, but that’s the way it is; I hope and trust you'll take it as such because I don’t choose to explain this in this format again because while I have disagreements with people your the only one that has consistently brought up this perspective. If you do the only thing I ask is you provide the same material you wish to see from me. Count on me checking the sources (funding, the reporter themselves, and anything else I have the ability to. Frankly I think there’s allot of "terrorists" in high places all over that have done bad shit and are responsible for allot of innocent life lost but will never have to answer for their crimes. There’s a few more Kill threads Id like to start in addition to Arafat the terrible.

Lastly to indirectly answer your question I read every source someone posts fully with an open mind initially, the proof you’re asking for has the problem of everything I mentioned and the very argument you brought up. I respect you for stating what you see and stating your stance, but please count on me dismissing something I see biased.

/your welcome.

Anyway, thank you for another well put together post, Son Tzu.

While I don't agree with you always, I definitely agree with you here.

We all have to recognize that all the news we see has it's own bias and deal with it as best we can, using as many sources as possible and combining it with our own experience, knowledge and common sense.

Really? I think that most people would agree that Snopes is the source to trust on this kind of stuff.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.htm

I don't think I need to say much more.

Sun Tzu, I had no intention of attacking you, nor insult you or whatever. I just reacted to what I saw as dismissal of news just because you don't like the person/site bringing it.

As far as I know, Arafat is indeed an Egyptian, and he is indeed a murderous bastard. The PLO has been responsible for many Israeli deaths, be they justified or not. As it's leader, Arafat is personally responsible for each and every one of those deaths. I do not believe he should have received the Nobel peace price in the first place, and would applaud his removal as Palestinian president. I do not think killing him would be a good idea, simply because it might inflame the situation even more, not because I feel it's morally wrong.

The point I was trying to make (and still am) was this: Arafat is a bastard, no matter who reports it. Just because a site is Zionist (whatever that may mean to you) does not mean their message pointing this fact out is necessarily wrong.

But that's just my opinion... :)