Sharon: 'We may kill Arafat'

[G_j]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4909228-103552,00.html

Sharon: 'We may kill Arafat'

New threat from Israeli leader raises tension in Middle East

Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem

Saturday April 24, 2004
The Guardian

Ariel Sharon issued an ominous warning last night that Yasser Arafat could be the next Palestinian leader to be in Israel's line of fire, when he reneged on a promise not to harm his old adversary.

In dramatic remarks certain to aggravate regional hysteria over Israel's targeted killings of Palestinian militant leaders, the Israeli prime minister said he had told President George Bush that he was no longer prepared to exempt Mr Arafat from physical harm.

"I told the president the following. In our first meeting about three years ago, I accepted your request not to harm Arafat physically. I told him I understand the problems surrounding the situation, but I am released from that pledge."

Mr Sharon declined to elaborate and would not say how Mr Bush had responded. Last night the White House insisted that it was still opposed to Israel killing Mr Arafat.

"We have made it entirely clear to the Israeli government that we would oppose any such action, and have done so again in the wake of these remarks," a senior Bush administration official said. "We consider a pledge a pledge."

..more..

[Philestine]

1. What would it take..

for the rest of the world to react to this for a change. How can Israel get away with what would never be condoned, or go unanswered by international action if it were another country?

[DANDI]

2. You mean defending itself against terrorists?

n/t

[Mikimouse]

5. I believe that the complete sentence should read...

"You mean defending themselves from terrorists that they helped to spawn themselves by their imperialistic expansion into Palestinian Arab lands?"

[DANDI]

14. There are no Palestinian Arab lands.

There is not and has never been a country of Palestine. There has never been a capitol of Palestine. There has never been a government of Palestine. The "Palestinians" is a fictitious term made up by Arab sympathizers to describe a group of refugees whose refugee status was a direct result of wars of aggression against an otherwise peaceful state of Israel. There was no "imperialistic expansion". Israel seized those lands as a result of being attacked simultaneously by five (or was it six?) Arab countries, to whom Israel delivered a sound spanking. They then kept those territories to provide a buffer zone and more defensible borders against any future attacks. The other Arab countries are responsible for more deaths of "Palestinian refugees" than Israel ever thought about being (see Jordan). Arafat was offered 90% of his demands for land and autonomy and his response was to declare the intifada, the result of which has been the deaths of hundreds of innocent men, women and children. You want the killing to stop? It's real simple. Get Hamas, et al, to give up it's blood lust against Israel and it's desire to see Israel "driven into the sea". Anything else is pure sophistry.

[minkyboodle]

17. pure sophistry

wow talk about irony

[DANDI]

19. Okay, you made the claim.

Now where am I wrong? Don't just make a snide remark and walk away. Debate me.

[aquart]

18. NOT that simple.

If you were staying rich and keeping your people poor by encouraging religious superstition and other nasty little customs, would you want open borders or unrestricted commerce with a European style democracy next door? Where women vote, wear shorts, have their own bank accounts and go to movies alone? Somebody might want to audit your books.

Would you, if you were a fundamentalist theocracy, want open borders or unrestricted intercourse with a European style democracy right next door? Nuh uh. Some woman might actually publish an article saying honor killings are wrong.

There are very good, sound reasons for keeping the Muslim people inflamed over Israel. I mean, with all that Arab support, didn't anybody ever wonder why the Palestinians were penned up in camps instead of being resettled in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Iraq.....How come not one of their great good friends took them in. Wait. Lebanon and Jordan did. Lebanon massacred them and Jordan kicked them out. Hmmm. Wonder why.

No. It seems simple, but it ain't.

[rman]

21. there were people living on that land, before

other people decided that land should be "Israel".

that's not ficticious.

[Zhade]

23. Pure horseshit.

They then kept those territories to provide a buffer zone and more defensible borders against any future attacks.

If that were true, illegal squatters ("settlers") would not be living on the land. That point is prima facie evidence that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I suspect you will not be at DU long.

[Philestine]

6. Come on..

I am in no way condoning suicide bombing, but you have to say that in recent months Israel seems to have gone from a policy of heavy handed protection to aggression.

Do you really think the route to safety is the abject humiliation of the Palestinian people? All I am saying is that if it wasn't Israel, I couldn't guarantee that there wouldn't be international to curb a policy which will only end in more death and misery.

Chechnya? Maybe

[madrchsod]

7. terrorists??

when does one stop labelling people terrorists? at what point does one say -"there are no more terrorists"? when they submit to your will? when they give up their right of redress? when are they deemed worthy?
it`s to bad for the people of israel that sharon has chosen war instead of peace, but what can you expect from an old terrorist???

[G_j]

8. terrorism

Definition: the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments


the powerful always get to call the 'others' terrorists,
but the definition should apply across the board.

[rman]

22. US and Israel opposed that definition as proposed by the UN

*only* US and Israel opposed it. in particular the "across the board" part.

[DANDI]

13. Personally

I'll be glad to stop calling them terrorists when they stop blowing up busloads of innocent people.

[madrchsod]

4. no country in the world will do

anything. it`s completely acceptable to label someone your enemy then kill them. humans and their nation states haven`t progressed any further than the first conflict thousands of years ago. the only thing that changes in the play is the names of the actors

[LynzM]

3. I don't know, and that's an excellent question

When you have heads of government making threats on the lives of heads of other government, and no one cares, that's a little bit scary. Particularly for a place as unstable as the Middle East.

[Gman]

9. Does Sharon get drunk then think this crap up late at night

slurring his words... ordering another execution?

[stepnw1f]

10. Sick People

Mental Illness really gone awry.

[acmavm]

11. Bad move, really bad move. Arafat may have lost a lot of his clout in

the past few years, but killing him like they've been doing the leaders of Hamas would make him the biggest martyr of the Palestinian cause that ever lived. Sharon is probably afraid that he's going down for corruption or that his party and the Israeli people are beginning to figure out he's only interested in endless war so he's going to take his old enemy out first.

As I said before, bad move, really bad move.

[bluedeminredstate]

12. Great timing!!

I fear the response in the Arab world should such a thing happen. Are they nuts??? I can't believe at this point in the Middle East, such an action would be helpful. It would certainly put our troops in a chaotic situation so far beyond the current mess that they couldn't control anything. Why isn't the US using some leverage to get Sharon to shut his yap? This is a direct threat to our troops!!
Maybe, Wolfie and his gang are salivating over the thought of using their "mini" nukes for a test run...

I wonder what the Big Dog and Jimmy Carter are thinking after hearing that. Unlike the illiterate Chimp, they read the papers and watch the news.

[aquart]

15. How old is Sharon? Have we checked his rock hard arteries?

[teryang]

16. What a diplomat!

I'm looking for more fighting to escalate around the 31st/1st of the month. Now that we had a breather from the higher casualty rates. Bush and his friend can fire up the guns in May until about a hundred soldiers are dead and then take a rest until the next body count quota.

[ugarte]

20. Every time Sharon kicks ass

the U.S. gets hit in the butt. And wallet.

[Moderator]

24. locking

duplicate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x505829