SHARON SAYS NO LONGER BOUND BY PLEDGE TO BUSH NOT TO HARM

[newsguyatl]

BC-BULLETIN
SHARON SAYS NO LONGER BOUND BY PLEDGE TO BUSH NOT TO HARM
ARAFAT
REUTERS

sorry this is all i have, just crossed the wires.

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. gee

That roadmap to peace is kinda shaped like a dogtrack, isn't it?

[Gman]

19. Totally unrelated and way, way off topic, but...

that's a great pic of Dr. J in the old ABA!! I appreciate it as a charter fan of another old ABA team, the Spurs.

Not a whole lot of people appreciated the fact that last year's NBA finals was an all ABA final with the Nets and the Spurs.

[THUNDER HANDS]

32. yes it was quite cool

and will be even cooler when the Nets get their revenge this year.

:evilgrin:

[Gman]

36. LOL! Yeah, right!

There's a reason the Spurs didn't pick up Jason Kidd in the offseason and its not money! They wanted producers!

Sorry, everybody else for this diversion :-) !

[mseltzer]

57. Love Dr. J.

He helped bring my Sixers the title. Of course I can't stand the pros anymore.
I'll never forget when I had tickets to the finals against the Lakers one year(the Lakers won) and my sister came down from NYC for the game. She had to leave work early to make the tipoff in time, so she just told her boss that she had to leave work early. When he asked why, she told him that she had to go see THE DOCTOR.

[damnraddem]

64. Hey, Ari, I'll give you whatever you want.

Thanks, George! By the way, I don't feel bound by my promises to you.

That's fine, Ari -- after all, I said 'anything you want.'

[kalian]

2. If they kill Arafat....

then all bets on stability in the ME are off. That's it. US troops
will be coming home by the dozens.

Thanks Israel! Thank you very fucking much! :mad:

[PurityOfEssence]

3. That really would be crossing the Rubicon

To the rest of the world, much of this is loud and scary, but still not rising to the heights of symbolism that offing the man who's embodied the Palestinian cause for the past four decades. Right or wrong though this perception may be, good or bad though the man is, this would be a drastic step that everyone would stop and notice.

[soleft]

4. Newsguy - please change your subject line to this

SHARON SAYS NO LONGER BOUND BY PLEDGE TO BUSH NOT TO HARM

Thanks!

[CBHagman]

5. I think Sharon started saying that a little while ago.

The first thing I heard was his public statement that he regretted not having killed Arafat when they had a chance (!). He then implied that that didn't mean they were going to do something.

Then I heard recently, before today, that Sharon had mentioned not being bound to the agreement anymore.

So yes, I think it is possible they will target Arafat. Bush will be as happy as a clam, if I know anything about him...

[54anickel]

6. Analysis: Is Arafat next?

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040422-023048-8660r

[mseltzer]

7. Fine by me.

Arafat is nothing but a mass murderer. The Palestinians can pick their own leaders, but when that leader directs and finances murderers, he is surely a legitimate target.

[htuttle]

9. Funny thing is...

...that's what much of the rest of the world says about George Bush: "a leader that directs and finances murderers. He's nothing but a mass murderer."

:shrug:

[theHandpuppet]

10. Pot, meet kettle...

If mass murderers and terrorists are all legitimate targets for political assassination, the Palestinians must feel the same way about Sharon.

http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon.html
http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-1/402/402_08_SharonIsTerrorist.shtml

[mseltzer]

27. Of course THEY do.

They've said publicly many times that they will kill him.

[theHandpuppet]

39. You missed my point

How often have we heard the media refer to Arafat as a terrorist or the leader of terrorists? Conversely, how often has Ariel Sharon been referred to as a terrorist? How many people in this country know of Ariel Sharon's own past as a mass murderer of Palestinian civilians, a fact NEVER brought up by our own media -- or is he considered a "freedom fighter" for his own murderous past?

Those supporting Sharon in calling for the death of Arafat on the grounds that he's a terrorist rarely mention this is like the pot calling the kettle black.

[librechik]

11. Given your logic, then Sharon ought to be next. He too is a mass murderer.

He says he "releases himself" from that promise to Bush. Gee, do ya think he learned that behavior from Bush, who thinks of himself as the unilateral leader of the entire world and "releases himself" from agreement after agreement, treaty after treaty?

This is a lawless bunch. Let them all die by the sword they raise.

[mseltzer]

26. This is all nonsense.

Equating Sharon with Arafat is just a juvenile attempt at moral equivalence. Sharon is the elected leader of a legitimate nation who takes action to defend his citizens against blood-thirsty terrorists. Israel has repeatedly offered peaceful resolutions to the Palestinians, who always refuse, because their leadership's goal is to destroy Israel.

The best thing that could happen for the Palestinians is for their corrupt gang of "leaders" to die off, then maybe some realistic ones could emerge. Until then, it's ludicrous to equate the behavior of the two.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mseltzer]

47. Yes, I

guess I'm brainwashed. I think Israel is a moral, strong democracy. I think the PA is a corrupt murderous dictatorship abusing their own people. I am brainwashed. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mseltzer]

54. Equating

the morality of the jews trying to defend themselves so they can live in peace with the morality of the palestinian leaders sending murderers to kill them while they go about their daily lives.

And nobody owns the right to use the term "moral equivalency." Do you think only conservatives have morals?

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mseltzer]

69. Okay

How are the Palestinians oppressed by Israel on an average day?

The only part of the Palestinian's life that concerns the Israelis these days are the efforts at violence.

If the Palestinians got everything they ask for, there would be no Israel.(I know,scoff at the idea, but they prove it daily)

It wouldn't have been settled peacefully years ago, the Palestinians were offered generous settlements, but they were refused, because the offers included living next to a Jewish state.

If you think the Israelis just get off on oppressing another people, you're crazy. They just want to be safe.

[jayfish]

88. Whaaaat??? Are you for real?

You may agree or disagree about the reasoning behind and the legitimacy of the oppression of the Palestinians, but to claim that said oppression does not exist is ignorant at best and downright disingenuous at worst.

Good Day Sir, I Take My Leave Of You,

Jay

[mseltzer]

114. I only asked

for a description of what Israel does on a daily basis to oppress the Palestinians. Very often the suffering of the arabs is actually due to their own leadership, but the blame gets thrown at Israel.

[Philestine]

118. How about...

Building a big wall round their settlement so they can effectively control, or suffocate any planned Palestinian state for a start?

In all honesty are you that blinkered that you can't see that if Israel really wants peace and safety, the current 'high noon' approach might not be the best long term strategy? Apart from anything else, just look at the responses from the rest of the world? Israel's actions are making it increasing difficult for anyone to sympathise with them in the current situation.

Unless Israel wants to wipe out every Palestinian from the face of the planet I cannot understand how anything but a less antagonistic approach will help. Surely they should try and and marginalise the terrorist threat rather then fueling public support for it?

[BigDaddyLove]

124. Yep, those friendly folks from Israel..........

1. "There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies ­not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, there are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to a different galaxy." Israeli president Moshe Katsav. The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001

2. "The Palestinians are like crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more".... Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time - August 28, 2000. Reported in the Jerusalem Post August 30, 2000

3. " beasts walking on two legs." Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts". New Statesman, 25 June 1982.

4. "The Palestinians" would be crushed like grasshoppers ... heads smashed against the boulders and walls." " Isreali Prime Minister (at the time) in a speech to Jewish settlers New York Times April 1, 1988

5. "When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, New York Times, 14 April 1983.

6. "How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to." Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.

7. "There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed." Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969

8. "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war." Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972.

9. David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.

9a. Ben Gurion also warned in 1948 : "We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do return." Assuring his fellow Zionists that Palestinians will never come back to their homes. "The old will die and the young will forget."

10. "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.

11. "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. (Certainly the FBI's cover-up of the Israeli spy ring/phone tap scandal suggests that Mr. Sharon may not have been joking.)

12. "We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.

13. "We must do everything to ensure they never do return" David Ben-Gurion, in his diary, 18 July 1948, quoted in Michael Bar Zohar's Ben-Gurion: the Armed Prophet, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 157.

15. "We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai." David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

16. "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum"

17. "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969.

18. "We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population?' Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'" Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979.

19. Rabin's description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of Plan Dalet. "We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters" Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960. From "The Arabs in Israel" by Sabri Jiryas.

20. "There are some who believe that the non-Jewish population, even in a high percentage, within our borders will be more effectively under our surveillance; and there are some who believe the contrary, i.e., that it is easier to carry out surveillance over the activities of a neighbor than over those of a tenant. tend to support the latter view and have an additional argument:...the need to sustain the character of the state which will henceforth be Jewish...with a non-Jewish minority limited to 15 percent. I had already reached this fundamental position as early as 1940 it is entered in my diary." Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department. From Israel: an Apartheid State by Uri Davis, p.5.

21. "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

22. "It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism,colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.

23. "Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine,Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry.

24. "One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail." -- Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994

[niceypoo]

130. They routinely shut off their power and water

When a new settlement is built, they show up with bulldozers and give the residents 24 hours to leave. If they refuse, they bulldoze the homes with them inside. If they choose to leave they are set to wander off to their fate with no help or compensation. Israellis can shoot palestinians with no threat of punishment. They are walled into a ghetto just as the nazis did to the jews. They are forced to live under an aparteid system. ................and on and on and on and on......

[Tinoire]

136. My Progressive heart breaks for Sharon, the Likudniks & their supporters

Cry me a fucking river.

It's NEVER Israel's fault is it?

[jayfish]

143. Dear Mods,

Why delete all of my posts except that one? It kinda takes away from the overall context of this branch... doesn't it?

Jay

[catzies]

103. Welcome to DU. You pose an interesting question:

"Do you think only conservatives have morals?

No, but I think they think they do! :D

[mseltzer]

105. You might

be right in a lot of cases.

[Fovea]

49. Moral equivalence...

One terror warrior from the past with another.

A lot of historical terrorists were the 'legitimate' leaders of their government. If you want a list, start with the Nazis and go from there. Surely now we are not going to devolve the argument to Eddie Izzard's question, "Do you have a flag?"

The last Israeli leader to make a genuine effort at peace was shot down by his nation's own extremists.

Arafat was rebuked and nearly killed by his own extremists.
There is a near moral parity for you.

There are no heroes in this fight, only murderers and victims.
But in the end, the greatest betrayal is from the United States,
who would be settling the issue once and for all, if there were just a bit of oil under the ground there.

[mseltzer]

52. I agree

with you that Rabin's was indeed a heartfelt, genuine effort. Thanks for making those points.

[Fovea]

56. I wish we had the moral courage we pretend to have.

We did after WW2, but apperantly not today.

I wept for Israel when Rabin was killed, and I am not Jewish.

[ze_dscherman]

127. Somenone is wrong here

Arafat is the rightfully elected leader of another nation, the Palestinians. Yes, this may not be know to you - he is, and most of the world still accepts this. Everyone but Israel and the U.S. likudnik-alikes. And most of the world also agrees that the Palestinians are a people, and that there actually is quite a bit of land that used to belong to them.

Could it be a legitimate right of the Palestinians to ask their own country back? Is Israel dong it's very best to deny this right? Isn't Israel trying to prevent a viable Palestinian homeland at any cost?
Israel and their U.S. ally never accepted the many, many UN resolutions to give back the land the its people - and I don't talk about Israel being taken off the map, just about the borders of 1967.

As well, you probably never have heard that the PLO several years ago has accepted Israels right to exist, and you probably even never heard about Oslo.

Better open your eyes and see it's BOTH sides that do very much wrong and very much harm.

Regarding corruption: Ever heard of the BIG corruption scandal Sharon is involved in?

[Tinoire]

139. That's one of the saddest parts

ONLY in the US has Arafat been side-lined per Israel's request.

The ENTIRE rest of the world still classifies Arafat as what he is- the leader of the Palestinian people. But here in the US? We parrot every line Bush and Sharon want us to, sideline Arafat and give legitimacy to the US/Israeli imposed puppets who have little credibility with the Palestinians.

People who give a rat's hair about peace in the world better start keeping an eye on the I/P forum.

Asa Stan Goff put it in his most recent article:

The New Line
The Democrats and Iraq
By STAN GOFF

<snip>

now both parties find themselves trapped in their own oh-so-special cul-de-sacs. The Republicans are stuck with an untenable military occupation and the Democrats are stuck with an idiotic critique. The Republicans can't speak about oil, and the Democrats can't speak about Zionism. So everyone is stuck with the same shitty end of the stick--reduced to talking in tongues to justify the bloody occupation of Iraq to an every more skeptical American polity.

<snip>

http://www.counterpunch.org/goff04202004.html

[mmm]

14. You are confusing Arafat with Sharon, the mass murderer

Plese take the time to learn a little about the situation.

[mseltzer]

28. Thank you

very much. I know quite a bit about the situation.

[kysrsoze]

48. With all due respect, I don't think you really do know that much.

"Drinking the Sea at Gaza" is an accurate representation of the real history of this situation. It was written by an non-Arab, Israeli Haaretz reporter. You can't get more unbiased than that. It is a VERY good read.

[mseltzer]

63. I don't

know who the reporter is, but bias can't be judged by a person's title or position alone.

[kysrsoze]

120. Well, why don't you read it and then make your own decision?

It's only a few hundred pages. I'd rather check things out than believe in something without checking some good sources. I have plenty more.

[mseltzer]

121. I have read dozens

of good books on the middle east, and on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in particular. Why would your suggested book be any better? On what point are you trying to enlighten me?

[kysrsoze]

141. Because your arguments are obstinate and indicate you only have

looked at one side of the issue. It sounds as if you blindly support the Israeli government without a shred of concern for the Palestinians. I used to feel somewhat the same way until I started trying to find out what was really going on out there.

Care to tell me what "dozens of books" you've read on the subject? Ever seen the video in which the Israeli soldiers attacked civilians with nerve gas? That one is a keeper.

[BeHereNow]

50. Ah, but do you know

"What every American SHOULD know?"
Please visit this site for some balance to your
perspective!
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
And, Welcome to DU.
BHN

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mseltzer]

71. Then

please correct me. When did I lie, and what did I lie about?

Did I break a rule by disagreeing with you politely? Is it written somewhere in the rules that defending Israel and not making excuses for terrorists is forbidden?

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mseltzer]

85. If you

don't have the time to educate me, then I won't waste your time with my qualifications on the subject. And you know what they say about name calling. Especially name calling and then leaving.

[northzax]

15. I agree fully

the Israelis have the right idea, kill the leaders (and sure, the children who are in the next car, but these things happen) I would like to see the Palestinians stop targeting civilians in Israel proper (the territories are fair game) and go after the Leadership of Mass-murderer Ariel Sharon. They should do the same thing Israel is doing, targeting military and civilian leadership with any force neccesary. If Sharon kills Arafat, they should kill Sharon. enough of this proxy war using civilians as pawns, kill the leaders and let the little people work it out.

[The Magistrate]

17. Indeed, Sir

When peoples are at war, it is hard to conceive of any more legitimate target than the executive authorities of their governing bodies.

[Vladimir]

21. Both sides have been trying these tactics

for 56 odd years now, with little effect. Less killing more talking anyone? Sharon and Arafat may well both belong in a jail, but that should be up to a court to decide.

[0007]

133. Yeeees! Let the court decide. Let's talk about it!

In the good old days, when Clinton was in office, they talked and talked and talked while hardly no one was getting killed.

[Vladimir]

142. I assume you are being sarcastic

it doesn't become you. I certainly prefer talking to murder perpetrated by either side, even if the talking reaches a dead end. Words are cheap my friend, lives are not.

[mseltzer]

31. You say

the Isralis target civilians? Do you mean the civilians that the brave Palestinian fighters hide behind when they engage Israeli troops?

[The Magistrate]

35. You Misread Mr. Northzax, Sir

He does not state anywhere that Israeli military forces target civilians. He notes that at times civilians are injured in operations aimed at Arab Palestinian leadership, and he notes that some of the leadership figures targeted are, strictly speaking, civilian and not military leadership. Sharon, strictly speaking, is a civilian leader, not a military one, at this time, for example. In time of war, of course, that sort of distinction loses a good deal of meaning.

[mseltzer]

40. Point

well taken. Thanks for the clarification. If apologies are due, I offer them.
For instance, in the attack on Rantisi, he would be considered a military target, as he gave direct orders to carry out specific missions, and his aids and bodyguards would be included. Passersby would be unintended civilians.

[arcane1]

16. you mean like Sharon, and Bush?

oh that's right, they live in countries that allow them to have a military, and can mass-murder people "legally"

now it makes sense :eyes:

[mseltzer]

37. Is it Sharon or Arafat

that is head of an entity where he has dictatorial powers? Which entity has a free press? Which has a PA controlled press that celebrates mass murder of civilians, and which has a press that criticizes it's government for any action it sees fit to?

Which entity has PA controlled schools with textbooks that teach 5 year old to yearn for martyrdom by killing jews?

Which entity appoints preachers who arouse the public to sacrifice their lives for jihad against jews? Which entity names their streets after suicide bombers? Which sends 11 and 14 year old boys with bomb-filled backpacks to border crossings to blow up, killing a soldier or two, along with unsuspecting old Palestinian women?

But I guess you're right. Ariel Sharon must go to sleep every night not thinking about keeping Israelis safe from these killers, he just tries to cook up new ways to massacre arabs. Thanks for educating me.

[arcane1]

58. of course! It's totally one-sided

can palestinians run for office? Can anyone with a Palestinian mother become an Israeli citizen? Which entity is barricaded and passes thru checkpoints to go to work? How many homes has the IR military destroyed?

goes both ways, bro. This "Arabs are all evil" bullshit is for children

[mseltzer]

67. Of course

Palestinians vote and can run for office and they are full citizens. Those that have lived in Israel. They have always had elected members in the Knesset.

Who said "Arabs are all evil"? You are the only one who wrote those words.

Unfortunately, those that live on the West Bank and in Gaza are now severely limited in their movements because of the violence that their leadership has fomented. It hasn't always been that way. Not more than a few years ago, many, many thousands of Palestinians entered Israel daily pretty easily for work and school.

The limitations on this movement is certainly not Israel's doing. They prefer it the other way. It had been a very worthwhile symbiotic relationship. Good jobs for the Palestinians and good workers for the Israelis. The Israelis have had to import foreign workers to fill the void.

This is just another example of how the leadership of the PA has further impoverished it's own people.

[arcane1]

70. so Arafat is personally responsible if I become a suicide bomber?

ok

[mseltzer]

77. He is

if he arranges for the bomb to be made for you, he selects a target, arranges for you to be transported to the location, and then arranges payment to your family for your efforts. Funds, by the way, that come from a pool of money, however you account for it, intended for humanitarian supplies for his suffering people. You think he cares about his people? He sends his wife $100,000 a month to live in Paris.

[arcane1]

80. ah, I see... and you have proof of this?

I hold Sharon responsible for every innocent death his soldiers cause, too. Isn't that also wrong? Is it ok to raze people's homes, kill their families, as long as you have a uniform on?

Or do you practice that "moral relativism" the left is so often accused of? :shrug:



dead children are dead children, no matter what ethnic group they belong to

[lumpy]

132. Chairman Heilbrun ,chairman for

reelection of Tel Aviv mayor,1983: "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves". This apparently has been the mindset of Israeli leadership since it's inception according to so many well known quotes from Israeli leadership. Willing Palestinians have been designated to be the servant class to Israelis. Importing servant labor in other Mideast countries is rather common. Rather like the blacks at one time in the US, I trust. Or perhaps like Mexican laborers in the US. I understand, that in the past at least, if Palestinian Muslims would agree to embrace the Jewish religion, they would acquire full rights as Israeli citizens.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mseltzer]

83. More deaths

of innocents is not the way to measure, since the Palestinian fighters deliberately hide behind civilians when they engage Israeli troops. And Palestinian teenagers run out to get into the mix.

I would also note that part of the Oslo agreements was that the PA was supplied (by Israel) with weapons and by the US, I believe with training, so they could and should have a cohesive police/semi-military force for internal security. Of course Arafat saw to it that the weapons were spread around quite loosely.

So the difference is DELIBERATE targeting of civilians.

As for bullshit, I don't know it. Everything I said is true, to the best of my knowledge. If you'd like to correct me instead of try to send me away, we could debate the issue. I don't understand why anyone would be so committed to defending the PA. They do far more damage to the average poor Palestinian every day than Israel could do in a year.


PS Were we wrong to win WW2 in Europe if more German civilians died than allied civilians?

[Zhade]

93. I'll need more than your word to believe these statements.

"...since the Palestinian fighters deliberately hide behind civilians when they engage Israeli troops.

Evidence, please.

And Palestinian teenagers run out to get into the mix.

IF true, are you suggesting they are forced to do this? Have you ever been around teenagers? Weren't you one at some point? Does this actually suprise you, if it actually happens to the extent you imply?

I would also note that part of the Oslo agreements was that the PA was supplied (by Israel) with weapons and by the US, I believe with training, so they could and should have a cohesive police/semi-military force for internal security. Of course Arafat saw to it that the weapons were spread around quite loosely.

Note it with sources, then, especially the last claim regarding Arafat.

So the difference is DELIBERATE targeting of civilians.

Which both sides do, and if you truly know anything about both sides of this conflict then you know this to be true. If in doubt, check out a reasonably reputable source like Human Rights Watch or the ICRC.

If you'd like to correct me instead of try to send me away, we could debate the issue.

Unfortunately, as I am at work, this will not be possible. I'll have to leave it to my fellow DUers (especially people like TinnyPriv, Tinoire, Snow, and others) to offer the excellent material they have readily at their fingertips. They know their stuff and can help you out on this issue.

I don't understand why anyone would be so committed to defending the PA.

It's more about the truth than defending the PA. I have no love for Hamas, either, but I still condemn Rantisi's assassination mainly because targeted killings are against international law. As there is no actual war, but a violent occupation (like in Iraq), the rules are a bit different. For example, the occupying army is responsible for the safety and well-being of the occupied citizens.

They do far more damage to the average poor Palestinian every day than Israel could do in a year.

Patently false. The PA does not level homes, does not use helicopter gunships and missile strikes against civilians, and does far less damage to both the human population and their infrastructure than does the IDF. Simply using Google and avoiding any right-wing sources that come up should reveal my claims to be true.

PS Were we wrong to win WW2 in Europe if more German civilians died than allied civilians?

How ironic you should use the fight against fascism to defend a fascist like Ariel Sharon.

[BunnyThief]

110. Zhade, here are some answers for you...

"...since the Palestinian fighters deliberately hide behind civilians when they engage Israeli troops.

Evidence, please."

With just a few minutes of searching, I found ALL THESE images of Palestinian terrorists hiding behind civilians, using children, indoctrinating children in terrorism.

And before you dismiss all the littlegreenfootballs.com links, EVERY SINGLE ONE links to a yahoo.com news photo that has expired. Ignore all the commentary you like, just look at the photos and read the Yahoo! captions -- ESPECIALLY the first one.

* * * * *

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=9838

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=9733

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8533




http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040416/481/jrl10104161235













* * * * *

And here's a cartoon that captures the "moral equivalence" of the Palestinian terrorists and the Israelis.



* * * * *

And as for the Road Map To Peace, The Israelis agreed to start with evacuating settlements and releasing prisoners, while the Palestinians agreed to change their charter to remove calls for Israel's destruction and "take action" against terrorists. Israel did so. Arafat has yet to change the PA's charter, and said they couldn't act against the terrorists "out of fear of triggering a civil war."

J.

[mseltzer]

115. Thanks

for the research. A look at excerpts from current PA textbooks, and a quick viewing of videos of some of the indoctrination sessions these poor kids go through are equally shocking.

[0007]

131. Were we wrong to win WW2 in Europe if more German civilians died

than allied civilians?"

I don't understand why anyone would be so committed to defending the PA

Sir your logic is as offensive to rational as water mixed with oil

[mseltzer]

108. Your argument

is pretty short of facts and relies on words like bullshit and ignorance. Very impressive.

I'll ask again. Who belongs here? ONLY people who are in total agreement with you? I addressed your only attempt at a statement of real fact, and you skipped right over it, as well as my other points, and just called me ignorant.

You could choose not to discuss it with me. That's perfectly honorable.

[denverbill]

25. If Arafat is a mass murderer, try him in court.

Even Hitler's henchmen had their day in court. Israel controls the his compound. If Israel wants him jailed, Israel should request that he be tried in an International Court for crimes against humanity.

Of course, Israel under Sharon doesn't care much for international law or human rights.

[mseltzer]

34. I believe

those trials took place after the war when the losing side had offered an unconditional surrender.

[denverbill]

43. My mistake.

I thought the 1967 war was over. I guess I should've realized that since Israeli troops still occupy the West Bank, the war isn't over. Perhaps the Palestinians will 'surrender' when the Israeli's actually allow them to form their own government and control their own lives.

Arafat's compound has been surrounded by Israeli troops for 2 years or more now. He's been under virtual house arrest that entire time. Israel needs to present it's case to an international tribunal and seek an arrest warrant based on whatever evidence it claims to have. International police should take him into custody. If he refuses to go peacefully, then Israel can feel free to take him by force.

[The Magistrate]

53. What International Police, Sir?

There is no international police force charged with apprehending violators of the Geneva Accords, and only very recently has there been any constituted court to which they might be delivered. All such tribunals, previously, have been been empanelled on an ad hoc basis to deal with specific instances, and the persons delivered to them either by a military victor, or an occupying force arrived by other auspices, or by a reconstituted government of the place in question.

Whether the result is pleasant to contemplate or not, the Israeli government has every right to kill or capture Arafat as it pleases, and if the latter, hold him either as a prisoner of war, or try him for violations of Israeli or international law in its own courts, or to turn him over to the World Criminal Court. That last is, of course, highly unlikely: a killing is much more probable.

[denverbill]

65. Interpol, UN mp's, whoever Arafat will submit to.

Israel has no more right to simply kill Arafat than Hitler had to arbitrarily kill Poles during the 6 years he occupied Poland.

If they want to charge Arafat with a crime, they need to do it legally. Attempt to arrest him using legal means. If he resists arrest with deadly force, then they can kill him.

If Israel doesn't want to lose what tiny scraps of international respect it still has, it would attempt to let the world arrest and judge Arafat. Any judgement by an Israeli tribunal will be suspect. A ruling by an international court would carry more weight.

[The Magistrate]

74. Be Reasonable, Sir

Interpol does not deal with such matters, nor are there any bodies of formed U.N. military police, nor, for that matter, does anyone ask what police force a wanted criminal is willing to accept arrest by, in any situation.

Put bluntly, criminal law is a very poor fit for this situation. The peoples of Israel and of Arab Palestine are at war with one another, and have been for more than half a century. Arafat is a leader of the nearest thing to a government of Arab Palestine, and a leader with executive control over armed bodies of Arab Palestinians: in short, he is a commander in a war, and as such is a legitimate target for military operations aimed at his neutralization. It serves no purpose to drag in the concept of criminality to the situation; that concept is fit mostly for conditions of settled peace, which certainly do not obtain west of the Jordan. There is certainly some question whether Arafat has violated the laws of war, by some of the military activities he has ordered and countenanced, but that is a seperate question, and has, really, no bearing on a military operation mounted to neutralize him.

[Zhade]

79. Do you thus allow that Sharon is a legitimate target for assassination?

If your argument holds together, you would. Do you?

[The Magistrate]

82. Absolutely, Sir

Such an action would, in fact, rather raise my esteem for the various armed bodies of Arab Palestinian irregulars, for it would be not only a legitimate, but a difficult operation. The people of Arab Palestine have every right to resort to violence to defend their land, though whether that is a wise course is debateable; what they do not have is the right to commit crimes of war in doing so. Military operations which take as their sole object the killing of enemy civilians are unargueably crimes of war. Military operations which take as their object engaging enemy military elements, and bring harm in doing so to enemy civilians, may be crimes of war, depending on a variety of circumstances. The seizure of land, the interference with a people's normal life, may also be crimes of war, but certainly fall short of the sort of murderous activity most people call to mind on hearing the term.

[Zhade]

84. We pretty much agree here.

I've said before that targeting the IDF or the squatters ("settlers") in the OT is a legitimate act of resistance against the illegal occupation. Attacking innocent Israeli civilians is not only wrong but harmful to the Palestinian resistance efforts.

[The Magistrate]

91. We Are Indeed, Sir

And that is always a pleasure. The people of Arab Palestine have a great deal of right on their side, and their cause deserves better than has developed for them.

[Zhade]

94. One question: your reference to "Arab Palestine".

I have not heard this term often - how do you mean it?

[The Magistrate]

95. It Seems To Me, Sir

The most apt term for refering to the national entity formed by that people, regardless of whether any formal statehood has been declared. That there is such a national entity seems to me beyond agument, just as it is in such cases as the Kurds and Basques, for instance.

[Zhade]

96. They only refer to themselves as Palestinians.

That's where my confusion about your term came in.

[mseltzer]

116. Anyone

who directs the military during wartime is a legitimate military target, including Sharon and Arafat, which makes it puzzling at times to see Arafat breathing. One Palestinian group killed a government minister not long ago(about 2 years,I think). That's very different than their usual taste for women and children.

[denverbill]

86. I am being reasonable.

What's unreasonable is continuing to use brute force, when brute force has repeatedly proven to provoke even greater violence.

The problem here is that Sharon doesn't accept the internationally declared borders for Israel established in 1948(?), and instead, wants to expand the state of Israel to include all of historical Israel, coincidentally, approximately all the land taken during the 1967 war. Worse yet, since there are more Palestinians than Israeli Jews, he couldn't allow them to be part of Israel. He would have a choice of genocide, mass relocation, apartheid, or a non-Jewish Israel.

Palestinians have been living in apartheid for nearly 40 years. How long would you willingly live as a 2nd class citizen in your own homeland before you started to throw rocks at your occupier? Would you meekly stand by and let him steal your land? If peaceful resistance led to only greater theft and deprivation, would you simply give up? 'Settled peace' is unlikely without justice, and there's a severe shortage of justice west of the Jordan as well.

[The Magistrate]

89. A Couple Of Small Points, Sir

What you refer to as "internationally declared borders" are not quite that, though they have come to serve for such, in absence of the genuine article. The boundaries of Israeli sovereignty are an Armistice Line negotiated at the close of fighting in the '48 war, which follows very closely the actual front lines at the time of the final cease-fire declared by the U.N. in that war. They were never intended to be permanent, and negotiations for a settled peace and permanent borders were expected to follow shortly after the Armictice agreement. These broke down, and what was mant to be temporary has become permanent. That many in Israel hoped, and hope, for more land, is certainly true, but one of the reasoms the Arab Nationalist of Palestine never declared a state for themselves, though they have every right to do so, is that in doing so they would themselves have to fix a border to it, and most of that leadership seeks sovereignty over a good deal of land generally recognized as part of Israel, or even over all of that land. One of the great difficulties in examining this matter is the tendency among partisans to particularize what is in fact a general failing among the participants.

[denverbill]

100. True.

One of the great difficulties in examining this matter is the tendency among partisans to particularize what is in fact a general failing among the participants.

Also true. And indeed I am very far from holding Arafat or the Palestinians guiltless.

But I also note the Israel's revulsion towards terrorism only began after a long terrorist campaign waged by Israeli settlers was finally successful and Israel was granted statehood.



I find it supremely ironic that Menachim Begin, the man responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel which killed 91 innocent civilians, was later elected leader of Israel and signed a peace treaty with Egypt.

Meanwhile, Arafat is declared unfit to lead the Palestinians, because of his alleged support for terrorists.

[The Magistrate]

101. That Irony Is Underwhelming, Sir

The hotel in question housed the military and civilian headquarters of the English administration of the Mandate, and so constituted a legitimate military target. The role of "terrorism" in the founding of Israel is highly over-rated, and most who cite it ignore the violence of the Arab Nationalists, directed against Jews, and on occassion against the English, begun even before the Mandatory period.

The Irgun and its antecedents were far from the main line of development among the Zionists; they were a distinctly minority group, and are hardly responsible for the establishment of the state. Their activities were roundly denounced by the mainstream Zionists, and there was only one brief period of collaboration between the Hagganah and the Irgun: their relations were generally and bitterly hostile.

[denverbill]

106. Sorry, but I strongly disagree.

The Irgun and its antecedents were far from the main line of development among the Zionists; they were a distinctly minority group, and are hardly responsible for the establishment of the state.

If and/or when Palestine becomes a state, you could probably say the same about Hamas.


Their activities were roundly denounced by the mainstream Zionists,
And moderate Palestinians denounced terrorism as well. Unfortunately, as the Israeli responses to terrorism grow even more severe, fewer and fewer Palestinians are moderates.


The hotel in question housed the military and civilian headquarters of the English administration of the Mandate, and so constituted a legitimate military target.

That doesn't stop Sharon from calling attacks against Israeli soldier's/police terrorists, or Bush from calling Iraqi attacks against the CPA terrorism.

I doubt the British felt it was 'legitimate' either.

[The Magistrate]

112. It Is Not That Easy, Sir

Certainly the English did not consider attacks against their installations and personnel legitimate, and certainly attacks against Israeli soldiers will be called "terrorism" by some: neither of these things is the slightest concern to me, or has the least bearing on whether the thing is actually a legitimate military action or not. Though we are getting rather far afield, certainly attacks in Iraq against military and puppet authority targets are legitimate; certainly some, however, are altogether too careless about killing Iraqi civilians.

The concepts of main-line and moderate are not interchangeable: certainly there have been moderate Arab Palestinians who have denounced crimes of war by armed Arab Palestinian bodies, but those persons who have done so are hardly the main expression of Arab Nationalism in Palestine. Figures like Mr. Weitzman and Mr. Ben-Gurion denounced the Irgun and its antecedents; these were people who held real power and dominated the Zionist movement. Even at the height of its power after World War Two and before the '48 War, the Irgun had no more than ten thousand adherents by the loosest definition. The Revisionist Zionist political tendency, which in some sense the Irgun was the armed expression of, never drew more than splinter totals in the Zionist elections in the Mandatory period.

Hamas is a much stronger tendency within the polity of Arab Palestine today than the Irgun was in the pre-state Zionist polity. The soundest measure of this is Arafat's reluctance to oppose them openly, for the likeliest explaination of this is that he is unsure he would be victorious in the attempt. Neither Mr. Ben-Gurion, nor Begin, were ever in the slightest doubt who would win a trial of political or armed strength between them in the Mandatory period, or in the early days of the Israeli state.

[Vladimir]

111. Great bit of realpolitik

But if you wish to dispense with the ideas of criminality and law in these matters, then lets not talk about states having the right to kill either. There is either a law which applies here and defines the rights of both sides, or there is not. And if there is not, then what you are discussing is how justified such killings by either side are in your eyes, not in terms of some abstract rights. We would pretty much all agree that killing civilians is never justified, but already when it comes to collateral damage, and certainly when it comes to the murder of politicians, the obvious becomes less clear. Unless the argument is now that might makes right of course.

[The Magistrate]

113. Hardly, Sir

Killing is the very establishing characteristic of the state, which is, at bottom, nothing but a group of persons who claim, and can enforce, a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence for political purposes within a given geographic area. A state without armed force is like an object without volume; it does not exist.

War is certainly a condition which exists between peoples and polities which have otherwise irreconcilable differences, and seek to force their will upon one another. One may disapprove of the very concept, if one chooses, but that will not effect its reality, nor will it be easy to oppose all war as illegitimate without becoming the effective ally of those willing to resort to it for base ends. Like most other tools, war is apt in some instances, and criminal in others.

There has lately been some attempt to regularize rules for the practice, with the aim of reducing the impact of its violence on non-combatants to the minimum possible within the context of the thing itself. It is not possible to shield non-combatants wholly from its violence, however. The law of war does not agree with your proposition that all killing of civilians is unjustifiable, nor can that proposition be supported readily if the actual practice of warfare is closely examined and pondered. Certainly all killing of civilians is regretable, but there are situations and circumstances in which it cannot be avoided. What is illegal under the laws of war is military action aimed at killing civilians, and not military personnel; similarly, taking up positions from which to fight that will subject civilians to danger is illegal under the laws of war.

[Vladimir]

123. Which is precisely why

I made the distinction between killing civillians and collateral damage - I am sorry if that wasn't very clear. We would all agree that targeting civilians for its own sake is wrong, but not about what levels of civilian collateral damage may be acceptable within each situation. In any case this point we seem to agree on.

As for your first point, of course a monopoly on the use of force is one of the defining characteristics of a state. But this right is defined within the legal framework of the state in question and assumes a legal framework for the exertion of force against the state's own citizens. For the exertion of force outside the state's borders, the problem is indeed that there is no legal framework to regulate it as you yourself pointed out. Thus my objection was, and remains, that Israel cannot have 'every right' to kill Arafat when these rights are regulated by nothing. Isreal's killing of Arafat, or indeed Rantissi or Yassin, can only be justified by a consequentialist analysis, rather than an appeal to a state's rights.

PS I am hardly a pacifist, but one need not be a pacifist to disagree with the targetting of enemy politicians during war (or de facto war in this case) - for pragmatic resons if nothing else.

[mseltzer]

62. You seem

quite a bit more reasonable than Arafat is. He doesn't recognize the end of the war.

If he did, perhaps he would like to sign a real peace treaty and observe it?

[arcane1]

72. as long as Sharon is raiding and bulldozing homes

there will be no peace

I'd blow them up too if they tried that shit in my neighborhood

[denverbill]

75. Here's a better idea.

Perhaps is Israel wants a 'peace treaty' with the Palestinian people, they could withdraw from Palestine, let the Palestinians actually elect a government which is capable of declaring peace, and go from there.

[The Magistrate]

78. That, Sir

Is fairly close to what Sharon claims is now his intent. It is not, in any case, a bad proposal, on its face....

[mseltzer]

87. That is

to a large extent what was done under Oslo. The PA was given control of large portions, granted, not nearly all, of the West Bank and Gaza. They held elections. This is the aftermath.

[denverbill]

90. Almost true, but not quite true enough.

They did not hold elections. Arafat was in deliberating signing the treaty when Sharon went to the Temple Mount to provoke a confrontation with the Palestinians, kill Oslo, and boost his own political career. It was highly successful on all three counts.

[The Magistrate]

92. Still, Sir

No one had to respond to Sharon's provocation. It is hard to argue the people of Arab Palestine would not have been better served if that unfortunate stroll had passed without incident, and matters had continued along the track that was in place....

[denverbill]

97. I would like to think I would be reasonable in their shoes.

I'd like to think I could still react coolly when someone who professed a desire to take all of my land for his own state visited the holiest site in my land, and that after 40 years of occupation, deprivation, and degradation.

I know, however, the if I knew full well that an action of mine would provoke outrage, rioting, and bloodshed, I would not commit that act.

[The Magistrate]

99. It Is Also, Sir

The holiest site for Jews, and so there seems to me no good reason for a blanket proscription of any Jew going there. Perhaps my lack of attachment to the various creeds involved unsuits me for comment, but it seems to me that no material harm could possibly have come from the visit, and therefore any material reaction to it whatever is foolishness.

The last several years of violence have been an unmitigated disaster for the people of Arab Palestine. They have suffered several thousand deaths and many more injuries; scores of thousands who then were prosperous now are destitute; politically they are more powerless than before, by far. All of this was readily forseeable, and ought to have been avoided: it would have been avoided by wise leaders seeking the best for their people.

[mseltzer]

104. Arafat

was not signing anything. He had walked away from the negotiations in late July, and started the intifada in early September. They had held elections sometime prior to that, I believe in the mid 90's.

[NeoConsSuck]

98. So by your logic..

I would have a perfect legal right to take out Sharon the next time he flew in to see the other war criminal in the white house, simply because I feel he is a "legimate target"?

Sharon’s responsibility for Sabra and Shatilla is well known. Following an international and domestic uproar, the Israeli government was forced to hold an inquiry. The resulting Kahan Commission laid direct responsibility on Elie Hobeika, the leader of Lebanon’s fascist Phalange militia that carried out the bloodbath, but said that Sharon bore “personal responsibility”. He was forced to resign from his post in 1983 although he remained in the cabinet.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/feb2002/sab-f22.shtml

[MUAD_DIB]

122. Then, I guess, by your standard Sharon must swing as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,433318,00.html

...snip...

It was mid-October 1953. Within eight hours al-Badoui's home was rubble. By dawn the next morning Israeli special forces would have dynamited much of the village and killed 69 people. Their leader was Ariel Sharon, the man who, unless the polls are outrageously inaccurate, seems certain to be Israel's Prime Minister by the middle of this week.

...snip...

It is too bad that more people don't know how much of a humanitarian Sharon is.

[niceypoo]

128. If they kill arafat then hundreds of US soldiers will die as a result

and the middle east will explode. Sharon has wanted Arafat dead for decades. By the way mseltzer your describing Sharon and Bush more than arafat

[CO Liberal]

8. We Know The Value Bush Places on Promises

Why should Sharon be any different? :shrug:

[maddezmom]

12. Sharon Won't Rule Out Attack on Arafat: link

JERUSALEM - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday that he was no longer bound by a promise to President Bush not to harm Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

It was the strongest signal yet that Israel could target Arafat, whom it has confined to his West Bank headquarters for two years.

~snip~

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/world/8503874.htm

[NashVegas]

13. link

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040423/API/404230811

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday that he was no longer bound by a promise to President Bush not to harm Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

[Norquist Nemesis]

18. Holy Crap! And Qureia has resigned...

20:14 Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia submits letter of resignation to PA Chairman Yasser Arafat

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/objects/pages/ShowTickers.jhtml

[maddezmom]

23. perhaps, doesn't want make the targeted killing list n/t

[tinnypriv]

20. If you want to make a good bet

They'll liquidate him this coming Sep 11, if past behaviour is any guide.

[Walt Starr]

22. Ariel Sharon: Biggest Terrorist in the world

Bigger even than Osama bibn Laden, IMO.

[BillZBubb]

38. Exactly Correct: Sharon is by far the world's top terrorist

He's responsible for the deaths of far more innocent civilians than anybody else currently on the world stage.

And now with Bush*s collusion, he's pulling the US into his disgusting, immoral net.

[mseltzer]

42. I'll play along

He's responsible for the deaths of far more innocent civilians than anybody else currently on the world stage.

What an utterly preposterous thing to say. I'm interested to see if you have anything to back this up aside from gossip/hearsay/a bad hangover maybe.

[Norquist Nemesis]

55. See post #50

Might not be the "world stage" but he's sure as hell going for the top 10.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mseltzer]

109. How did you figure out

my hatred for our constitution? I thought I was hiding it well.

But a better question yet is when did Israel become a theocracy? I've never heard that one before.

[mmonk]

24. Well when Sharon became Prime Minister

there was no way I thought things would be ok with Sharon heading the Israeli government and Arafat, the Palestinians.


I personally think its time we cut the umbilical cord with Isarael and get a small bit of difference between them and US policy. They still could be an ally, but this Sharon to the WH and no talking to the Palestinians is just making it possible more of us could die from a terrorist act. Therefore our government is in derelection of its duty to the people of the US.

[mseltzer]

33. Who the hell

is the US OR Israel supposed to talk to on the Palestinian side. Arafat? Who lied through his teeth so many times that President Clinton wanted to strangle him?

[Zhade]

81. Do you have a source for that?

It seems that every post of yours on here lacks citations to support your (untrue) claims. As you've made them, you have the responsibility to back them up or be dismissed as uninformed. The burden of proof is on you.

So, pray tell, please link to evidence that Arafat "...lied through his teeth so many times that President Clinton wanted to strangle him".

[mseltzer]

117. You have no right

to call any of my claims untrue without citations of your own which show them to be untrue. You may call them unsubstantiated if you like. They happen to be true.

[Mikimouse]

129. Some historical references that might interest you...

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/plocov.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm

Happy reading

[Tinoire]

140. What a bunch of garbage.

he has every right. Here you come spouting right wing talking points, thinking no one will notice, and the burden of proof is on anyone but you?

Oh please. PLEASE. PULLEEEZE!

Every single point you tried to make was based on the God-damned lies that go undisputed at FreeRepublic. If you're going to start spouting them here, be prepared to SUBSTANTIATE them.

We're not going to reinvent the God-damed wheel everytime someone starts spewing right-wing talking points.

[Barkley]

134. I agree, you make some very good points!

I think that other countries around the world will start distancing themselves some may even start divestments and boycotts from Israel.

I believe that Sharon's statement on Arafat is intended to get Bush closer to Israeli policy and alienate Europe/ Russia. Also Bush essentially wants to do the same kind of thing in Iraq and any other country we decide to conquer.

I also believe that Israel's nuclear weapons arsenal ultimately guarantees that they will have their way no matter who is PM.

I just wonder if the Israeli citizens believe that killing all of these Palestinians or annexing the West Bank and Gaza will make them safer?

[phoebe]

29. SOMEBODY better do some pretty fast talking

Where the FUCK is Spain? This is not funny.

[Loonman]

30. War Criminal

Sharon is scum.

[BillZBubb]

44. That's why Bush* likes him!

Birds of a feather.

[leftynyc]

45. And your opinion of Arafat is????

n/t

[Rex]

46. I hope that the Israeli people realize they have a madman as PM

If Sharon has Arafat killed then all hell will break loose in the region.

[Merlin]

60. The one thing Arafat prays for above all else is to become a martyr.

It is his only exit policy now that it's clear he won't have a Palestinian state with any legitimacy to be President of.

He's saying to himself, "Go ahead, Ariel, make my legacy."

There will come a time...
There will come a time...
There will come a time, Oh Israel, when the sins of thy fathers shall reap recompense on thee. Though ye ride atop the mighty chariot of power today, yet tomorrow you shall be brought low for your inhumanity.

[ze_dscherman]

138. He literally does

Arafat Defiant in Face of Sharon Death Threats

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Palestinian President Yasser Arafat responded defiantly on Saturday to new threats against his life by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, telling a crowd of supporters he would embrace "martyrdom."

"All of us are martyrs-in-the-waiting," Arafat said in the compound of his Muqata headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah, where some 4,000 people chanted they would sacrifice their "blood and souls" for the veteran leader.

http://news.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=4929022§ion=news

[Tellurian]

61. So, what happens if say, the Saudis make the same disclaimer

about Bush?...

All bets are off.

Arabs no longer bound by pledge to Islamic emirate not to harm Bush?

[powergirl]

102. That's what happens when our presdent spends about 15 minutes

dealing with the Israeli/Palestinian problem. Way to go Bush! (sarcasm)

[Malva Zebrina]

107. Of course

Dishonorable men break their word, consistently.
Sharon is not an honorable man.

Israel claiming to be the only democracy in the ME as if it gives them some sort of "peace medal" for it's policies of assassinating people in wheelchairs and bulldozing peace activists to death, and building walls to keep people out or in their ascribed ghettos is nothing more than a barbaric state whose crimes are on the equal level with those states who were or are not democracies.

All a democracy proves is that the people have been cajoled into thinking that any killing and murder of arabs is justified because it has to "defend itself" so they vote in a killer and murderer./

Since it seems perfectly fine to the majority of Israelis who voted Sharon in, to assassinate a paraplegic in a wheelchair, along with the leader of the US, including Democrats, assassination seems to be the preferred method of dealing with those who would oppose and actually fight back.

err--well, it is necessary to ignore the rule of law, in a democracy, mind you, the brag of the Israelis', because it is necessary to defend itself after all.

Any killing is just fine.

They have gone animalistic and ever the more beserk, and Bush is only to happy to rubber stamp his evil obssessive fascination with death and being a war president who revels in the power over life it gives him by approving of Sharon and his goals, in spite of the atrocities and ethnic cleansing.


This area will become very fragile very soon. It just feels that way to me.

[goforit]

119. When are the Israelis gonna get rid of the SOB?

[Tinoire]

125. Sharon? Not one moment too soon for the safety of the world!

You're right! :thumbsup: That SOB needs to go. What is comforting, and this I have on the authority of Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, is that Bush and Sharon are going to "fry in hell" (President of the American Jewish Congress from 1972 to 1978 and Vice President of the World Jewish Congress from 1975 to 1991). Rabbi Hertzberg was a leading advocate during the Civil Rights movement and an outspoken critic of the Vietnam War).

You can read the interview here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x66645

EIR: After years of devolution and increasing tension, we're at a critical point in terms of Israel's survival and the danger of a full-blown worldwide clash of civilization.

Hertzberg: I think that what happened in Washington yesterday is a disaster. Sharon is licking his chops. He's going home to Israel to parade his achievement; he scored a famous victory. Bush is licking his chops. He thinks he's added about 10% or so to the Jewish vote that he will get in November. And so, Florida is more secure, and he thinks that he will himself be re-elected.

Both of them will fry in hell for what they did yesterday. And I want you to quote me on "fry in hell," because what they have done is that they have permanently put the United States at war with the Arab world. They have left no negotiating room. The only tactic that Arabs have left is to send in more suicide bombers.

EIR: It's certainly a worse situation than it was before the day before yesterday.

Hertzberg: And therefore, anybody who thinks that what happened in Washington yesterday is good for peace and good for people, is out of his head.

EIR: Unfortunately, in the Bush Administration and elsewhere, there are a lot of people who are out of their heads.

Hertzberg: Absolutely, absolutely.

EIR: As you know, we've been putting pressure on the Bush Administration for getting rid of Cheney and his entourage.

Hertzberg: I'm part of that pressure from a different side. These people are essentially mindless bullies. It's not merely that they're bad for Arabs, or bad for America. They are also bad for Jews. They are involving us in a permanent war with the Arab world. They are making it much worse.

[Barkley]

135. Great Post!

The insight on the Nov. election is good.

And I agree, Sharon is making it bad for America.
But I think Bush want's to do the similar kind of things
in Iraq ... extra-judicial assassinations justified by
fighting terrorism.

How does killing all of these Palestinians make Israel safer?
I thought security is why they built the apartheid wall?

Thanks again for the post.

[Forkboy]

126. They can't kill him

Who will they blame for everything then?

[lumpy]

137. An honest -to- God miracle

will be the only resolution to the ongoing bloody conflict that has infected the land that was once known as the Holy Land. The ingrained hate between the Arabs and the Jews in that land has been as devastating as a nuclear war. Hate is the most toxic weapon ever devised by mandkind. It has been used by both sides by any means possible to kill the hate that infects all these people. Bombs, bullets, rocks, bulldozers, slings and arrows will not kill hate.

[Moderator]

144. Locking this thread due to size

You can continue discuss here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=506040&mesg_id=506040