Shalom: Israel's threat on Arafat is bearing fruit

[Herschel]

The Israeli cabinet decision to "remove" Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat, which resulted in overwhelming condemnation at the UN last week, is bearing fruit on the ground in Israel, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said Wednesday.

Ever since the decision was adopted on September 11, Arafat has been working to convince terrorist groups to halt attacks on Israelis, said Shalom in a briefing with reporters at the UN. "I really think that Arafat, more than others, takes us seriously," he said. "He thinks a huge attack can cause him a lot of damage."

"I don't want to give the exact details of what we would do if such an attack took place, but I think Arafat understands very well what it means," he said.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull%26cid=1064373874019

We have the weasel's attention. I will leave it at that.

[mike_c]

1. "We?"

Don't count me among your band of murderous thugs.

[Herschel]

2. Explain yourself

Which band of murderous thugs?

[mike_c]

4. the Likud and the IDF...

...and whomever else you meant by reference to "we" in your post extolling the virtues of death threats against Arafat.

[Herschel]

5. The 'Lukid and the IDF' are not murderers

They do not target innocents. I did not endorse the killing of Arafat in that message.

[Darranar]

6. They do not target innocents?

Then the wall doesn't exist.

The settlements don't exist.

The demolishing of homes for no real purpose doesn't exist.

[mike_c]

9. exactly which planet have you been spending time on...

...lately? Earth to Herschel: Israeli military pilots are now beginning to refuse to "not target innocents."

[Herschel]

14. Explain yourself

Show where Israel was targeting innocents. Collateral damage is not the issue.

[Darranar]

15. Demolishing houses with no connection to terrorism?

Shooting children in the head?

Building walls on Palestinian land?

Endorsing settlement-building which has a critical affect on the Palestinians?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[Herschel]

18. Children shot in the head

are sad accidents. The wall protects Israel. Settlement building on disputed land is to be negotiated.

[mike_c]

20. "disputed land?"

Herschel this is over the top even for you. Look, if I go to my neighbor's house, kick him out, crap on his floor, steal his property, and terrorize his relatives, do we then have a "dispute" over his land?

[Herschel]

23. The territories are disputed

The Green line is a fantasy of the past. It will not return.

[Darranar]

24. How are they disputed?

They were taken in war.

[Herschel]

26. If little Israel had not been provoked

the Green line might well serve as a boundary today. However, she fought bravely against agressors and the territories will not be turned over so easily.

[Darranar]

28. Then they are still occupied...

not disputed.

And why shouldn't they be turned over to a Palestinian state? It will benefit the Palestinians and it will benefit Israel's security. Why not?

[Herschel]

30. They were won

In a defensive war. They will not be handed over in whole because the Palestinians seek it. They must first surrender. Then there will be negotiation. That is the surest path to peace.

[Darranar]

32. Why shouldn't they be handed over in whole?

"Because the Palestinians seek it?" What does that have to do with anything?

[Herschel]

44. I have no more ways to say it

The territories were won. They will not be turned over in whole. Israel seeks to keep some areas. The road to peace is Palestinian surrender and a gradual evolution to a state under proper Israeli supervision.

[Darranar]

46. BUT WHY?

Why NOT give the Palestinians back all of the occupied territories?

[dudeness]

47. what you seek is unconditional surrender

do you truly believe this will reduce violence if this outcome was achieved..a basic rule of negotiation is that both sides must feel a victory has been negotiated..what you propose would not lead to this outcome..

[Herschel]

52. There was unconditional surrender

from Japan and Germany in World War II. Today we are allies. Would it have been better to stop short of total victory with an evil force left to deal with? I think you know the answer.

[Darranar]

54. Terrorism is not similar to Germnay and Japan...

it is a different sort of problem. And the occupaiton of those nations quickly ended, unlike the one going on in the West Bank and Gaza.

[Darranar]

21. "Sad accidents..."

Sometimes they aren't accidents. And no one will ever know which were which because no real investigations have occured.

The wall, where it is currently located, won't accomplsih that much for Israel, IMO. Keeping it standing and defending it from attacks may cost more money then security efforts cost now. In addition, no wall in inpentrable.

It isn't disputed land, it's occupied territory. (And thank you to the DUer who explained to me why it was.) Settlement building is building buildings on stolen land. It has a crippling effect on the Palestinian economy, because "security barriers" around these settlements cause many difficulties in transportation within the WB and Gaza, and they also overrun Palestinian farms.

[Herschel]

25. You are so sure

Some are not accidents? Show me these. A wall at the Green line would be a retreat from terror, and embolden the killers. I can assure you no settlement will come with the Green line as border.

[Darranar]

27. Yes, I am sure that some are not accidents...

For the same reason that you do not think that every suicide bombing that killed innocent Israelis was a premature explosion that was supposed to strike IDf members or other legitimate targets.

[Herschel]

29. Please!

How far must you stretch? Where is your evidence of the brave IDF deliberately shooting children?

[Darranar]

31. I'm the one stretching?

You're the one stretching porbabilities - and that was my point. Hundreds of Palestinian children have been killed by the IDf. theyb can't all be accidents, especially the ones who were shot in areas clearly to kill.

[Herschel]

33. Explain yourself

What are areas clearly to kill?

[Darranar]

34. That was a badly worded phrase...

what I meant was bullets aimed at the head and other vulnerable parts of the body; parts of the body that, if it, would result in death.

[Herschel]

35. If a child is accidentally shot

It could be in any area including the head.

[Darranar]

37. True...

but if (taking statistics out of thin air, this is purely hypothetical) 20% of accidental shootings of children hit the head, and 80% of children shot have bullet wounds to the head, there's a good chance that a large number of those shootings were on purpose.

[Herschel]

39. If most were shot in the head

that would be strange. I am not aware of any statistics on this.

[Darranar]

43. That's not the point, though...

the point is that the number of Palestinain children shot is so high that it is in high probability that one or more of the below are true:

a. Some Israeli soldiers are extremely incompetent

b. Some Israeli soldiers and commanders do not excersise very much caution in avoiding civilian casualties

c. Some of these killings were done on purpose.

[Herschel]

48. I suggest to you

that a and b will be the case with any large armed force. You cannot show me c.

[Darranar]

50. If that's true...

then why should Israel conduct such extensive military operations in the west Bank, when they don't accomplish anything and ssimply kill civilians and cause more Plaestinian suffering?

[Herschel]

53. They are strikes at terror

Terrorist groups are damaged.

[Darranar]

55. But the root causes of terrorism aren't dealt with...

rather, they are made more harmful.

[Herschel]

57. We could run in circles

Terrorists against Israel will not be satisfied until she is destroyed. It is better to destroy them rather than deal with them.

[Darranar]

58. But you destroy them...

by reducing and eventually removing their support among the general populace. The onyl way to do this is to remove many of the settlements and add to ease of movement within the Occupied Territories. Along with that, tearing down the wall is a good step.

[Gimel]

49. Many of them were armed

The age of 18 is used to count the dead as children. Yet 15 year olds can bear arms legally in a war according to the GC. Isn't this somewhat of an unfair account then? If children are armed and shooting, isn't it fair to return fire? When you say "Hundreds of Palestinian children have been killed by the IDf." I believe that you are referring to that 18 and under figure. Who is to blame, really, when it goes to children killed in battle? Is it the side that arms them or the side that combats them?

[Darranar]

51. Okay...

so now all those Israelis who walk around armed are legitimate targets of military operations?

[quilp]

11. Well, you sure "endorsed" the threat didn't you?

The "leaders" of one government publically boasting of an intention to murder the "leader" of another has all the flavor of Chicago gangsters.

[tinnypriv]

3. This was reported on Tuesday in Yediot

The exact quote from Sharon in internal cabinet:

"Arafat is acting against them because he is scared".

Brings to mind a playground, doesn't it? :eyes:

[bemildred]

7. Shit, you mean they finally figured out how to scare Arafat?

After all these decades of sucking up to him, finally they
found something that would work. Who knew?

[quilp]

8. You mean "kill" don't you? "Remove" is such a "weasel" word.

Don't you think? Talking of "fruit on the ground" isn't there something about "as you sow, so shall you reap"?

[Herschel]

10. There are forum rules

that forbid the expression of certain viewpoints. I will leave it at that.

[Darranar]

12. Regarding Arafat?

No, there are no rules stopping you from saying that you want to kill him.

I/P Forum Rules

[mike_c]

13. hit the alert if you think that disagreeing with you...

...constitutes a forum rule violation.

[Herschel]

16. I do not think that

I was stating there are certain opinions I hold in regard to Arafat that cannot be expressed fully here.

[quilp]

17. Your post celebrated the threatened murder of the leader

of a people who clearly acknowledge him as their leader. It is hard to imagine what "expression of certain viewpoints" this forum "forbids".

[Herschel]

19. I said we had the attention of Arafat

If that causes him to reel in terror, that is a good thing.

[mike_c]

22. ahhh, finally, your support for terror comes clean....

Felt good, didn't it?

[quilp]

36. "Reel in terror" to what? His threatened murder by Isreali leaders?

Sounds more and more like you are "weaseling".

[Herschel]

38. You two

"Ever since the decision was adopted on September 11, Arafat has been working to convince terrorist groups to halt attacks on Israelis, said Shalom in a briefing with reporters at the UN. "I really think that Arafat, more than others, takes us seriously," he said. "He thinks a huge attack can cause him a lot of damage." "

This is a good thing.

[Darranar]

40. Of course it's a good thing...

but I have doubts that he's increased his efforts to fight terrorism much. He knows that it won't change anyone's opinion of him.

[bemildred]

41. I dunno.

So you think his efforts are sincere?

[quilp]

45. Death threats do have a way getting someone's attention.

Perhaps this is an approach every country should take. If Bush had threatened Chirac maybe France would have troops in Iraq, and they would have given us some money by now. Better yet. Let's threaten the head of the UN. Then we'd have the whole world "taking us seriously". Yup, sounds like you are on to a "good thing" allright.

[dudeness]

42. I must say that your use of language would do any propagandist

proud..the constant advocacy of violence as a means to a political solution only undermines your right to express a legitimate opinion..in a more and more violent world its time the voices of peace rose above those persuing violent means..

[MariMayans]

56. you think so?

I wondered for awhile if perhaps it was parody. In it's own way it's hillarious stuff.