U.S. backing Israeli plans to kill Arafat?

Sleipnir

I read this as the U.S. backing Israel on their desire to assassinate Arafat. Not openly backing it of course, but indirectly.
Would the assasination of Arafat pave the way for peace? I think not.
Opinions?





Arab world condemns US Arafat veto
Arab diplomats have condemned Washington's decision to veto a UN Security Council draft resolution denouncing Israel's policy of "removing" Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

US Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte said the resolution was "flawed" because it did not include a "robust condemnation of acts of terrorism" by Palestinian militant groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

The US was the only one of the 15 countries on the Security Council to oppose the resolution, with three - Britain, Germany and Bulgaria - abstaining.

Yasser Arafat brushed the resolution's failure aside, saying: "We are not shaken by a resolution from one place or another.

"We are more important than any resolution," he told visitors at his Ramallah headquarters on Wednesday.

Palestinian UN representative Nasser al-Kidwa said that the veto would lead to "serious consequences" for which the US alone bore responsibility.

And Syrian Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad described the decision as "regrettable", adding that it only worsened a situation in the Middle East that is already "extraordinarily complicated".

'Licence to kill'

The draft resolution, sponsored by Syria, had demanded that Israel "desist from any act of deportation and cease any threat to the safety of the elected president of the Palestinian Authority".


It followed a statement by Israel's security cabinet last week denouncing Mr Arafat as an "obstacle to peace" and saying he should be removed through unspecified means.

Over the weekend Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that his government had not ruled out killing Mr Arafat.

BBC correspondent Greg Barrow at the UN said several diplomats feared that through the vote Washington may have inadvertently sent a message to the Israeli Government that its threats towards the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat will not be opposed.

Palestinian spokesman Saeb Erekat described the veto as "a black day" for the UN and said he hoped that Israel would not interpret it as a "licence to kill".

But despite the veto Mr Kidwa said that he would continue to seek action on Israel from the Security Council.

"This is the house of international law and if Israel, with all its violation of international law, is capable of commanding the automatic protection of one permanent member, that doesn't make the Israeli positions any [more] right," he said.

"We will keep fighting those violations of international law and relevant Security Council resolutions."

The recriminations follow a harsh debate at the UN during which more than 40 governments condemned the Israeli position.

Israeli ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman on Monday denounced the Palestinian leader as a "professional terrorist", prompting the Palestinian representative to walk out of the session.

bloggs

Surprise, surprise!!!

One terrorist state supports another. It truly shows that Israel says to the US 'jump', with the reply from Washington 'how high?'. It is now clear that the Bush regime does not want peace in the Middle East but Israeli domination.

If the terrorist Sharon is allowed to kill who he wishes how will this end?

The Israelis and Sharon are making Hitler look like a nice guy!

It truly shows that Israel says to the US 'jump', with the reply from Washington 'how high?'. It is now clear that the Bush regime does not want peace in the Middle East but Israeli domination.

Strange since at the moment its the US that has more troops & influence in the Middle East. Israel will never have that much power for multiple reasons (for example, most arab nations hate Israel, Israel doesn't have the population or infrastructure to conquer the middle east)

If the terrorist Sharon is allowed to kill who he wishes how will this end?

Funny, since when did he have to ask for permission? The US tried to assassinate Khadafi, without asking anyone's permission least of all the UN. Just as the Palestinians don't ask anyones permission before bombing civilians.

At the end of the day, if Paleestinians wanted peace, they'd stop bombing, and settle down seriously for peace. If they did that, Israel would loose any support it currently has for its violent responses. But thats not going to happen.

One other point. For the last while everyone has been saying how close the UN is to being irrevelent since the Iraq invasion.... strange how everyone starts listening and complaining when they agree with what the UN says...


Sorry, in regards to the first post, i don't see anything wrong with the targeting of Arafat. He represents the enemy, just as Saddam did for Iraq. There was no complaining abt that attemped assassination........

dathi1

Sorry, in regards to the first post, i don't see anything wrong with the targeting of Arafat. He represents the enemy, just as Saddam did for Iraq. There was no complaining abt that attemped assassination........

eh....he was elected democratically under international supervision. Under that premise Sharon qualifies for assasination too..u agree?

eh....he was elected democratically under international supervision. Under that premise Sharon qualifies for assasination too..u agree?

The Palestinian Groups have shown that they have no problem with targeting civilians, especially women and children. Do you really believe they have held off attacks on leaders out of some honor code?

But as for my opinion, then yes, i do believe that he does qualify... Essentially Palestine & israel are still at war, (at least in my eyes), and the US have shown that the targeting of enemy leaders is perfectly acceptable to the International community.

bloggs

Originally posted by klaz
The Palestinian Groups have shown that they have no problem with targeting civilians, especially women and children. Do you really believe they have held off attacks on leaders out of some honor code?

When you say the Palestinain Groups i have to assume you mean the likes of Islamic Jihad and Hamas, as it's not offical policy of the Palestinian Athority to attack civilians (or the Israeli army). The difference is that it is Israeli policy to attack 'suspected' militants (and anyone who happens to be cycling their bike at the time).

Anyway Bush called Sharon 'a man of peace' so he has to be a saint :rolleyes:

Franky i would rather see Sharon out of the picture than Arafat, as the latter is the safer of the two for the Middle East.

When you say the Palestinain Groups i have to assume you mean the likes of Islamic Jihad and Hamas, as it's not offical policy of the Palestinian Athority to attack civilians (or the Israeli army). The difference is that it is Israeli policy to attack 'suspected' militants (and anyone who happens to be cycling their bike at the time).

Hmm... i wasn't aware that people on bikes were automatically targeted... strange that being offical policy;)

So if it was Israeli unofficial policy, to launch chemical weapons in response to attacks it would be ok>?

The Palestinian government is there to control their people, and to lead them. If they have no control over these groups, then what are they doing in power?

If Israeli groups started bombing at random Palestinian areas, would you not demand for the Israeli Government to arrest/stop them? Why should it be different for Palestinians...?

Anyway Bush called Sharon 'a man of peace' so he has to be a saint

Bush's opinion isn't exactly the most intelligent in the world. I think we can agree that if someone whispers in his ear, he's likely to repeat it.

Franky i would rather see Sharon out of the picture than Arafat, as the latter is the safer of the two for the Middle East.

Frankly, I'd like to see peace in Israel, and Israeli held territories. But i don't really think thats going to happen any time soon.... But you might consider that Sharon can do the things he does, simply because of his counter-part Arafat is there. remove one, and its likely the other will disappear.

Sleipnir

But as for my opinion, then yes, i do believe that he does qualify... Essentially Palestine & israel are still at war, (at least in my eyes), and the US have shown that the targeting of enemy leaders is perfectly acceptable to the International community.

Since when have Palestine and Isreal been at war?
When did Isreal declare war on Palestine?

The the U.S. have shown that targeting enemy leaders is acceptable to the International community?

"The US was the only one of the 15 countries on the Security Council to oppose the resolution, with three - Britain, Germany and Bulgaria - abstaining."

I think this shows that the international community largely disagree with targeting heads of state.

"The Palestinian government is there to control their people, and to lead them. If they have no control over these groups, then what are they doing in power?"

Irish Government/IRA? Would you agree with Britian assassinating Ahern because he has failed to control his people?
Would that be acceptable to the international community?

And what are you basing this on?
"But you might consider that Sharon can do the things he does, simply because of his counter-part Arafat is there. remove one, and its likely the other will disappear."

So if Arafat is killed, Hamas will disband and go quietly?

dathi1

But as for my opinion, then yes, i do believe that he does qualify... Essentially Palestine & israel are still at war, (at least in my eyes), and the US have shown that the targeting of enemy leaders is perfectly acceptable to the International community.

I think at this stage Klazz either you're taking the piss (and a good job too) or you really believe that Regan, Kissinger, Pol Pot, Bush etc are the "good guys" and Fox News is fair and balanced.

I think at this stage Klazz either you're taking the piss (and a good job too) or you really believe that Regan, Kissinger, Pol Pot, Bush etc are the "good guys" and Fox News is fair and balanced.

actually i wasn't agreeing completely. I was saying that the US have assassinated leaders and world opinion has not cried out for justice... So i'm not taking the piss, and i definetly don't believe Fox news is fair and balanced.

When did Isreal declare war on Palestine?

Perhaps war wasn't declared, but when you're constantly having battles between two groups, i'd call that a war. Considering the numbers of deaths on both sides since the 50's, that determines a war to me.

Irish Government/IRA? Would you agree with Britian assassinating Ahern because he has failed to control his people?

There is no relation between the IRA and the irish government. I haven't seen the Irish government ever say that they found the IRA methods acceptable or that they wished a united ireland for the IRA's price. As an Irishman, i don't agree with the IRA, and i don't want anything to do with them. There is a difference between the [Irish Government & the IRA] and [Palestinian groups and the Palestinian "government"].

And what are you basing this on?

But you might consider that Sharon can do the things he does, simply because of his counter-part Arafat is there. remove one, and its likely the other will disappear."

My opinion. Just as u describe your own opinion.

So if Arafat is killed, Hamas will disband and go quietly

I doubt it. but he's unable to command them now, so someone might appear that can,.

Sleipnir

"Perhaps war wasn't declared, but when you're constantly having battles between two groups, i'd call that a war. Considering the numbers of deaths on both sides since the 50's, that determines a war to me."


Your opinion of what a war is or isn't is irrelevant. A war is not a war just because you say so.

"actually i wasn't agreeing completely. I was saying that the US have assassinated leaders and world opinion has not cried out for justice..."

And in some cases it has been justified. But Arafat is an internationally recognized head of state, He has the following of many of his countryrmen, if Isreal murder him then he will become a powerful martyr and Hamas will avenge his death they only way they can (they are not supplied militarily by the U.S., unlike Isreal and are therefore incapable of making and sustaining a war against Isreal)
Who do you think will replace Arafat? I love your idea that once Arafat is dead, no one will step into his place and the terrorists will just stop. And Sharon will disappear, seemingly in a puff of smoke.
You cannot stop terrorism without talking to the terrorists so somone will have to relace Arafat if there is to be peace.
And, after Isreal has assassinated Arafat do you think Hamas will replace him with someone who is going to lie down !?!?!?

The terrorism will get worse, He will be replaced by another leader who will not be quite so diplomatic. More people will die.


"There is no relation between the IRA and the irish government. I haven't seen the Irish government ever say that they found the IRA methods acceptable or that they wished a united ireland for the IRA's price. As an Irishman, i don't agree with the IRA, and i don't want anything to do with them. There is a difference between the [Irish Government & the IRA] and [Palestinian groups and the Palestinian "government"]

Ok then, what if the British Government murdered Gerry Adams?
Although not the head of the IRA, he is certainly the political face of the IRA
Do you believe that it would end the violence in the North?
Would the IRA then put their weapons away?



"My opinion. Just u describe your opinion."


you can't just put your opinion up, you also have to defend it. Otherwise it's just a thought in your head, not a fully informed opinion.

bloggs

Originally posted by klaz
There is no relation between the IRA and the irish government. I haven't seen the Irish government ever say that they found the IRA methods acceptable or that they wished a united ireland for the IRA's price. As an Irishman, i don't agree with the IRA, and i don't want anything to do with them. There is a difference between the [Irish Government & the IRA] and [Palestinian groups and the Palestinian "government"].might appear that can,.

The PA have condemed sucide bombings and locked up members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, isn't that a form of condemnation?

I don't think the Israelis will kill Arafat, as they need a scapegoat, when things go bad, 'It's all Arafat's fault'. Like Bush with his Bin Laden, there needs to be some one direct fire at. How someone who is under armed guard, trapped in his compound is meant to reign in terrorists is beyond me!

In regard to your 'As an Irishman, i don't agree with the IRA', the majority of people in West Bank and Gaza don't support the likes of Hamas or Islamic Jihad (3% of the Vote last time).

bonkey

Originally posted by Kananga
I read this as the U.S. backing Israel on their desire to assassinate Arafat. Not openly backing it of course, but indirectly.

Its funny really.....after watching the vote live on the box last night, I was wondering what the reaction would be.

I was expecting all those people who said that the French defying the US equated to supporting Saddam to turn up and now apply the same logic to the US, and say that they support political assassination. Strangely, these "you support Saddam" claimants seem rather quiet right now.

Personally, I think the US should not be criticised for "supporting" assassination, because I don't believe they are. What they are saying is that they do not support the Israeli actions, but will not condemn them in this manner. Rightly, or wrongly, its an objection to the means rather than the end - an objection which I've defended the French for taking, so I feel I should apply my standards equally.

Having said that, I think that the US played their cards wrong. They've basically come out and said that they will not sign on board to an unbalanced statement. I'm betting this will resurrect itself when they next try to condemn anything the Palestinians do, as they will be asked why all of a sudden a balanced statement is unnecessary.

The vote was always going to fail....but I'm glad that it went ahead. I think that any nation who threatens to use the veto should be publically forced by their peers to carry out their threat, rather than a quiet admission of defeat occurring when a "dead in the water" proposal is just dropped and never voted on.

jc

Geromino

Originally posted by bloggs
The PA have condemed sucide bombings and locked up members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, isn't that a form of condemnation?

The PA has not locked up anybody, for criminal offenses, since 1992 and then released them in 1994. On occasion they have "locked up" some leaders for protection, but not for criminal offenses. The PA does not have real authority in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Hamas does. They have created an infrastructure of hospitals, schools, police, etc in their controlled areas. In regards to Arafat, he is no more a man of peace than Sharon. However, when former PM Netenyhu(?) was PM of Israel, he lost because he could not guarantee the safety of the Iraelis. Since then, it has gotten worse not better and Sharon has had no choice, in some cases, to use direct military force. Most of you, gathering from your posts, are definitely too young to remember that the Gaza Strip and West bank were a)officially Jordon held territories, b) Israel had no military stationed in the occupied territories, and 3) Israel had a relative good raport with most Palestinians before 1992. However, you do not see the whole history of the occupied terrotories on the web sites you probably currently view. I also remember the shock and horror of the Helsinki assassinations and murders and Israelis response. I am also old enough to remember the rhetoric by Arafat that there would be no peace between Israel and Palestine or any of its supporters. I have yet to see Arafat truely offer his hand in peace. He has fought the Oslo accords and subsequent peace plans offered by Europe and the US. Yet I see most in here think it is only Sharon is the bad guy. That is the wrong assumption. Arafat, IMO, is more at fault than Sharon is.

In regard to your 'As an Irishman, i don't agree with the IRA', the majority of people in West Bank and Gaza don't support the likes of Hamas or Islamic Jihad (3% of the Vote last time).

And yet Hamas owns and operates about 50% of the hospitals in the occupied terrorities and bout two thirds of the schools in the region too. Do not take stock in the polls by Palestinians. It never really shows their true intentions

Geromino

Originally posted by bloggs
Surprise, surprise!!!

One terrorist state supports another. It truly shows that Israel says to the US 'jump', with the reply from Washington 'how high?'. It is now clear that the Bush regime does not want peace in the Middle East but Israeli domination.

If the terrorist Sharon is allowed to kill who he wishes how will this end?

The Israelis and Sharon are making Hitler look like a nice guy!

Just curious, did you read the UN resolution? I doubt it. Did you consider the US reason for response, I seriously doubt it.

Reason: The US thought it was unfair to vote for a resolution condemning Israel's unofficial policy without taking into consideration of Arafat's obstructionism and unofficial support of terrorism.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Geromino
I am also old enough to remember the rhetoric by Arafat that there would be no peace between Israel and Palestine or any of its supporters. I have yet to see Arafat truely offer his hand in peace. He has fought the Oslo accords and subsequent peace plans offered by Europe and the US. Yet I see most in here think it is only Sharon is the bad guy. That is the wrong assumption. Arafat, IMO, is more at fault than Sharon is.

This isn't a debate about whether or not Arafat is desperately working for peace, or who is actually running Palestine, is someone who is actively involved in terrorism, but rather whether or not the America's veto of a U.N. resolution which condemned Isreali plans to assassinate Arafat, was in fact a cloaked backing of those plans.

I do understand that the American's said they would veto it because it did not specifically state that "the U.N. is against terrorism in all it forms but........."
But come on, can we not take it as read that the U.N. believes terrorism is wrong and get on with it?

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
The PA has not locked up anybody, for criminal offenses, since 1992 and then released them in 1994.

SO how come a google for "PA arrests" will provide links to many arrests etc. carried out in the years since then?

How come also the PA had to release people in recent years for fear the holding facilities would become attacked, if there was no-one there since 1994???

3) Israel had a relative good raport with most Palestinians before 1992.

I'm not too young, and thats not true. It may be the line the Israelis - and by extension the US - would like us all to believe, but revisionist history is not really a worthy addition to the problem.

Perhaps you could explain the purpose of the Oslo Accords if things were in such good shape? Perhaps you could explain why the chosen and elected leader of the Palestinians was in exile if things were in such good shape.

He has fought the Oslo accords and subsequent peace plans offered by Europe and the US.

Now you're admitting that a peace plan was needed in the same timeframe that you're trying to tell us everything was fine in. Come on.......

Yet I see most in here think it is only Sharon is the bad guy.

No-one is saying that. Well, some people may say that, but I haven't seen any post on this thread saying that only Sharon is the bad guy. People are saying that Sharon is a bad guy, and you are telling us we're wrong. Now you're changing from "he's not to blame" to "he's not only to blame".

Consider this. Should I be able to criticse the American policy of locking Japenese Americans up during world war 2 without having to say "but remember, the Japenese were even more complete bastards in the war, and the Germans probably worse"? If not...why not? What have the Japense and German actions go to do with the rightness or wrongness of US actions.

Similarly, the current situation in Gitmo. When the first detainees were being "arrested", many people cried out about human rights. "But they're the real bad guys" was the defence....as if that made everything the US did ok.

There seems to be an insistence that its fine to be inhumane as long as you're less inhumane than the other guy. These people were "clearly guilty" - they didn't deserve any better, and yet some have been released without charge. And still, if you try levelling criticism, you get told "but they're terrorists - they would do worse".

The US thought it was unfair to vote for a resolution condemning Israel's unofficial policy without taking into consideration of Arafat's obstructionism and unofficial support of terrorism.

The same logic again....

I can guarantee you, however, that if any nation asked to table a motion condemning Palestinian terrorism unequivocably, the US would not be standing up insisting that Israeli actions be equally criticised in order to ensure a "balanced statement".

Originally posted by Kananga
I do understand that the American's said they would veto it because it did not specifically state that "the U.N. is against terrorism in all it forms but........."
But come on, can we not take it as read that the U.N. believes terrorism is wrong and get on with it?

Because while its acceptable for the Americans to say "we don't need a UN motion to make it clear that we are against the proposed action by Israel", it is completely unacceptable for any other nation or body to take similar stances.

jc

The Beer Baron

eeeh- has anyone even seen Arafat lately?
I think if anyone's gonna "assasinate" Arafat is a rather boney looking chap with a scythe and a dark cloak who TALKS LIKE THIS IN PRATCHETT NOVELS.

Besides, does Israel US give a crap about the UN?
No. :rolleyes:

Nor the States for that matter.

Typedef

I have to say.

Regardless of taking sides in this, for Israel to asassinate Yassir Arafat, would spell the beginning of probably the biggest Palestinian uprising ever.

It would turn Arafat into a dead martyr and at the same time coerce legions of Palestinians into fighting Israel, not to mention fringe groups and individuals from across the Muslim world (for example British Muslims going to fight for the Taliban, during the American invasion).

I think aside from the continued occupation, that asassinating Arafat would be the biggest single blunder Israel could make in terms of brining retribution onto it's civilians (for years) to come.

Such a move would trigger an unreal bloodbath.

Take the hunger strikers in the Maze, they are and were used as martyrs to incite support for "the cause", imagine, what asassination of Arafat would do to Palestinian and World Wide public opinion, and the reaction from the Muslim (not just the Palestinian) world.

It would be a pandemic of religous war, in my opinion.

The Beer Baron

Typedef that's one of the smartest comments so far.