Sharon Says Israel Determined to Remove Arafat

[Herschel]

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Monday Israel was determined to "remove" Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, reaffirming a decision taken by his government a month ago.

"This man is the biggest obstacle to peace and therefore Israel is determined to bring about his removal from the political arena," Sharon said in a policy speech at the start of the winter session of parliament.

Israel's security cabinet decided in principle last month to remove Arafat but did not say how or when. Its threat provoked an international outcry and the United States, Israel's key ally, said it opposed exile for Arafat form the West Bank.

cut

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53155-2003Oct20.html?referrer=emailarticle

=====================

The old warrior may be wise to rattle the weasel's cage agian. He has a tendency to mind himself when his life is in the balance.

[patdem]

1. Arafat is to Sharon what Sadaam is to bush*

bush* knew when he was adorned with the pResidency he was going to take down Sadaam...for Sadaam to be in power AFTER bush* was out of power was TOO much for him to concieve....the same is true with Sharon

Sharon cannot concieve that Arafat would be in power after he is voted out of office....Arafat MUST GO...Sharon would NEVER allow Arafat to remain in power AFTER he leaves...that would be a SLAP in the face...

[Herschel]

2. You may be correct

It is Sharon's choice when the weasel is finished.

[Darranar]

3. The old war criminal deserves to be locked up for life...

not that Arafat deserves that much better.

[Herschel]

4. How dare you

Sharon was elected. He is the man Israel has chosen.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Darranar]

6. So was Bush...

well, no he wasn't, but Bush I was.

That doesn't change the fact that he is a war criminal.

He deserves to be locked up. That does not mean he should be. That's cleanup, once peace has come.

[bemildred]

7. Try to stick to one idea at a time, Hersh.

He said war criminal, he didn't say he was unelected.
That's Mr. Bush.
IIRC only a third or so of Israel "chose" him.

[The Magistrate]

9. A Recent Coinage By Mr. Oz Struck Me, My Friend

"Sharafat" seems to define the problem well just now....

[bemildred]

10. Excellent.

:thumbsup:

I must confess I am too fond of puns.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. Darranar is correct; Sharon is a war criminal

The Kahane Commission examined in detailed the massacre at Shabra and Shatila refugee camps near Beirut on September 16-18, 1982. The commission's report concerning General Sharon's responsibility for the tragedy is scathing:

In his testimony before us, and in statements he issued beforehand, the Minister of Defense also adopted the position that no one had imagined the Phalangists would carry out a massacre in the camps and that it was a tragedy that could not be foreseen. It was stressed by the Minister of Defense in his testimony, and argued in his behalf, that the director of Military Intelligence, who spent time with him and maintained contact with him on the days prior to the Phalangists' entry into the camps and at the time of their entry into the camps, did not indicate the danger of a massacre, and that no warning was received from the Mossad, which was responsible for the liaison with the Phalangists and also had special knowledge of the character of this force.
It is true that no clear warning Was provided by military intelligence or the Mossad about what might happen if the Phalangist forces entered the camps, and we will relate to this matter when we discuss the responsibility of the director of Military Intelligence and the head of the Mossad. But in our view, even without such warning, it is impossible to justify the Minister of Defense's disregard of the danger of a massacre. We will not repeat here what we have already said above about the widespread knowledge regarding the Phalangists' combat ethics, their feelings of hatred toward the Palestinians, and their leaders' plans for the future of the Palestinians when said leaders would assume power. Besides this general knowledge, the Defense Minister also had special reports from his not inconsiderable meetings with the Phalangist heads before Bashir's assassination.
Giving the Phalangists the possibility of entering the refugee camps without taking measures for continuous and concrete supervision of their actions there could have created a grave danger for the civilian population in the camps even if they had been given such a possibility before Bashir's assassination; thus this danger was certainly to have been anticipated - and it was imperative to have foreseen it - after Bashir's assassination. The fact that it was not clear which organization had caused Bashir's death was of no importance at all, given the known frame of mind among the combatant camps in Lebanon. In the circumstances that prevailed after Bashir's assassination, no prophetic powers were required to know that concrete danger of acts of slaughter existed when the Phalangists were moved into the camps without the I.D.F.'s being with them in that operation and without the I.D.F. being able to maintain effective and ongoing supervision of their actions there. The sense of such a danger should have been in the consciousness of every knowledgeable person who was close to this subject, and certainly in the consciousness of the Defense Minister, who took an active part in everything relating to the war. His involvement in the war was deep, and the connection with the Phalangists was under his constant care. If in fact the Defense Minister, when he decided that the Phalangists would enter the camps without the I.D.F. taking part in the operation, did not think that that decision could bring about the very disaster that in fact occurred, the only possible explanation for this is that he disregarded any apprehensions about what was to be expected because the advantages - which we have already noted - to be gained from the Phalangists' entry into the camps distracted him from the proper consideration in this instance.
As a politician responsible for Israel's security affairs, and as a Minister who took an active part in directing the political and military moves in the war in Lebanon, it was the duty of the Defense Minister to take into account all the reasonable considerations for and against having the Phalangists enter the camps, and not to disregard entirely the serious consideraton mitigating against such an action, namely that the Phalangists were liable to commit atrocities and that it was necessary to forestall this possibility as a humanitarian obligation and also to prevent the political damage it would entail. From the Defense Minister himself we know that this consideration did not concern him in the least, and that this matter, with all its ramifications, was neither discussed nor examined in the meetings and discussion held by the Defense Minister. In our view, the Minister of Defense made a grave mistake when he ignored the danger of acts of revenge and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population in the refugee camps.
We have already said above that we do not assert that the decision to have the Phalangists enter the camps should under no circumstances ever have been made. It appears to us that no complaints could be addressed to the Defense Minister in this matter if such a decision had been taken after all the relevant considerations had been examined; however, if the decision were taken with the awareness that the risk of harm to the inhabitants existed, the obligation existed to adopt measures which would ensure effective and ongoing supervision by the I.D.F. over the actions of the Phalangists at the site, in such a manner as to prevent the danger or at least reduce it considerably. The Defense Minister issued no order regarding the adoption of such measures. We shall not dwell here on what steps might have been taken; this we shall consider below. Regarding the responsibility of the Minister of Defense, it is sufficient to assert that he issued no order to the I.D.F. to adopt suitable measures. Similarly, in his meetings with the Phalangist commanders, the Defense Minister made no attempt to point out to them the gravity of the danger that their men would commit acts of slaughter. Although it is not certain that remarks to this effect by the Defense Minister would have prevented the acts of massacre, they might have had an effect on the Phalangist commanders who, out of concern for their political interests, would have imposed appropriate supervision over their people and seen to it that they did not exceed regular combat operations. It was related above that a few hours after the Phalangists entered the camps, soldiers at the site asked what to do with the people who had fallen into their hands, and the replies they were given not only did not bar them from harming those people, but even urged them to do so. It is a highly reasonable assumption that had the commanders who gave that reply heard from the Defense Minister or from higher Phalangist commanders a clear and explicit order barring harm to civilians and spelling out the damage this was liable to cause the Phalangists, their reply to these questions would have been different.

The Kahane Commission had no judicial authority. That was fortunate for General Sharon and unfortunate for the cause of international justice. Had the Commission had such authority, it is likely that Sharon would have stood trial for his part in the masscre. The Commission concluded:

We have found, as has been detailed in this report, that the Minister of Defense bears personal responsibility. In our opinion, it is fitting that the Minister of Defense draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office - and if necessary, that the Prime Minister consider whether he should exercise his authority under Section 21-A(a) of the Basic Law: the Government, according to which "the Prime Minister may, after informing the Cabinet of his intention to do so, remove a minister from office."

Sharon was forced out of his position as Minister of Defense in the wake of this report. The report, along with eyewitness accounts of survivors and the tesitmony of those presnet, has formed the basis several of attempts to bring Sharon to account before an international court.

Of course, Sharon's culpability in the massacre is not as great as that of the late Major Haddad. Nevertheless, the Commission determined that Sharon had the authority to prevent Haddad's phalangists from entering the camp and that he knew or should have known what the consequences of granting that permission to enter would be. General Sharon was neglegent at best and complicit at worst in the deaths of between 800 and 2000 Palestinian refugees. Either way, his behavior was criminal. He is yet to be called to account.

[rini]

26. kahane report simplified

Sabra & Shatila

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

The Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia was responsible for the massacres that occurred at the two Beirut-area refugee camps on September 16­17, 1982. Israeli troops allowed the Phalangists to enter Sabra and Shatila to root out terrorist cells believed located there. It had been estimated that there may have been up to 200 armed men in the camps working out of the countless bunkers built by the PLO over the years, and stocked with generous reserves of ammunition.

When Israeli soldiers ordered the Phalangists out, they found hundreds dead (estimates range from 460 according to the Lebanese police, to 700-800 calculated by Israeli intelligence). The dead, according to the Lebanese account, included 35 women and children. The rest were men: Palestinians, Lebanese, Pakistanis, Iranians, Syrians and Algerians. The killings came on top of an estimated 95,000 deaths that had occurred during the civil war in Lebanon from 1975-1982.

The killings were perpetrated to avenge the murders of Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel and 25 of his followers, killed in a bomb attack earlier that week.

Israel had allowed the Phalange to enter the camps as part of a plan to transfer authority to the Lebanese, and accepted responsibility for that decision. The Kahan Commission of Inquiry, formed by the Israeli government in response to public outrage and grief, found that Israel was indirectly responsible for not anticipating the possibility of Phalangist violence. Israel instituted the panel's recommendations, including the dismissal of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon and Gen. Raful Eitan, the Army Chief of Staff.

The Kahan Commission, declared former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, was "a great tribute to Israeli democracy....There are very few governments in the world that one can imagine making such a public investigation of such a difficult and shameful episode."

Ironically, while 300,000 Israelis demonstrated in Israel to protest the killings, little or no reaction occurred in the Arab world. Outside the Middle East, a major international outcry against Israel erupted over the massacres. The Phalangists, who perpetrated the crime, were spared the brunt of the condemnations for it.

By contrast, few voices were raised in May 1985, when Muslim militiamen attacked the Shatila and Burj-el Barajneh Palestinian refugee camps. According to UN officials, 635 were killed and 2,500 wounded. During a two-year battle between the Syrian-backed Shiite Amal militia and the PLO, more than 2,000, including many civilians, were reportedly killed. No outcry was directed at the PLO or the Syrians and their allies over the slaughter. International reaction was also muted in October 1990 when Syrian forces overran Christian-controlled areas of Lebanon. In the eight-hour clash, 700 Christians were killed-the worst single battle of Lebanon's Civil War.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/bios.html

[Darranar]

27. Propaganda, rhetoric...

blah blah blah blah.

[bluesoul]

28. Propaganda

It has become a habbit :crazy:

[rini]

29. I am so disappointed in you

I thought you would come back with a reasonable argument. A refute of the Kahane report, a statement of moral guilt, or at least admit there is blame enough to spread around...but no you go with the anti-Israel crowd like a duck to water. Oh, how sad. Where is your so-called sense of justice and fairness?

[Darranar]

30. I'm TIRED of refuting biased junk from right-wing sources...

that deny that the settlements are obstacles to peace.

Of course atrocities were committed against innocent people by both sides. But that fact doesn't justify atrocities committed by the Government of Israel and Sharon.

[The Magistrate]

31. But The Specific Point Of Sabra And Shatila, My Friend

Is worth some regard.

Sharon either let the Phalangists in knowing full well what they would do, or if that was not his intent, he certainly ought to have known what would occur. Which is correct cannot really be answered definitively, probably not eeven if the wretch were put to The Question in the high old style.

Israeli military figures near the scene were certainly dilatory in reacting to the events, and as their commander, Sharon must bear responsibility for this, regardless of what view is taken of the above point.

The actual murders were the Christian Phalangists, and without their actions, point-blank, no one would have been killed at in those two locales: the most important responsiblity, really, falls upon those gun-men, whatever others might have contibuted.

It is also true that killings in various faction fights between various armed Arab Palestinian bodies, which have at times taken on the characteristics of massacre, do draw very little attention or condemnation. It really ought not to make any difference who the killers are, if it is the killing that is objected to, and this last does at least make reasonable speculation that it is who kills, and not that killing is done, which is objected to by many.

[Darranar]

32. I agree...

however, what the propaganda piece attempted to do was trivialize the massacres on the basis that worse was committed.

Sharon being a war criminal in my opinion does not only have to do with Sabra and Shatila; his actions as defense minister during the Lebanon war - and before it - were despicable.

[rini]

33. so, you are now discussing post shatilla

name one war crime (with proof or it's just more BS) that Sharon either gave the ok for, or did himself commit a war crime.

BTW, try to stick to one subject at a time.

[Darranar]

35. The bombardment of Beirut?

That's the first one that comes to mind - i'm sure that there are others.

[rini]

37. Proof?

Indictments?

[Darranar]

38. What proof?

You mean it didn't happen?

[rini]

39. no

I mean when, who, indictments...

[Saudade]

8. Oh My!

Last week the obese third rate thug said the opposite, to appease Sugar Daddy, but nothing he says means anything.

Arafat, regardless of what anybody thinks of him, has lead the Palestinian people a lot longer than Sharon, who is forever barred from being Defense Minister, for his war crimes, but this is no obstacle to being PM in the military theocracy known as Israel, and Arafat remains far more popular than Sharon can ever hope to be in his own nation.

If the fat loser murders Arafat, things will only get a lot worse for the thug, who has failed in every single criterion of leadership, beginning with his promises of "security."

What imbeciles like Ariel Sharon cannot understand is one very simple and eternal proposition, which is earned at the price of blood:

The Spirit of Resistance will never die, even after the old welfare-queen whore is buried and forgotten.

There is no more crucial issue for progressive people than the liberation of Palestine. This is the moral measure of humanity right now.

[Equinox]

11. Great post, Suadade!

n/t

[Darranar]

12. "Military theocrocy?"

I'm not going to join the group of Israel-supporters who pass the state off as an utopia, but "military theocracy" is going too far. Just like calling the US a "fascist, militant dictatorship" would also be going too far.

And a whole number of things are more important to me then the liberation of Palestine.

- Corporate imperialism

- Bush's hawkishness and war-mongering

- Changing our Middle East policy as a whole

A number of other things could be added to that list, but those are the ones that immediately come to mind.

[Saudade]

14. Darranar

Hey, how are you doing?

By "military theocracy," I mean this:

Israel is basically military with a government attached. The military governs Israel, of this there is no doubt.

Israel is basically a theocracy in that the need to maintain the jewish character of the nation overrides all other goals, including democracy. The religious compulsion (to settle and annex Greater Israel) is what keeps Israel in the occupied territories, when it makes absolutely no sense economically, politically, morally or otherwise.

I agree with you about corporate imperialism and Bush, but I ask you this:

Would Bush be such a war mongering corporate imperialist if not for Israel? Maybe, you tell me.

As for our middle east policies as a whole, isn't our unconditional support of Israel at the very center of that?

When I say that the liberation of Palestine is the most crucial issue for progressives, I mean this:

Nowhere else on earth is the struggle between the rich and the powerless more palpable and urgent. Nowhere else are a specific people suffering such great injustice and horror as in Palestine. We are witnessing a great ironic tragedy, a genocide, like none other on earth.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever in saying that Israel, and America's unconditional support of Israel, is the single greatest obstacle to world peace on this day and for the foreseeable future.

I am interested in a dialogue with you on this subject!

[Darranar]

15. I'm fine, thank you...

The military does not really rule in Israel. Generals are often prime ministers because they are Israel's heroes; despite Sharon's despicable actions in Lebanon, his skill battling Egypt in 1973 was amazing and worthy of notice.

Israel is a democracy. The military does not rule there any more than corporate power rules here; in other words, no powerful blow is ever dealt to them, but blows are dealt and oppurtunities are spurned, even if they would help the parties mentioned.

Israel is not a theocracy in the true sense of the word; a theocracy is a government by a religious leader, and any government in which a secularist party, whose entire platform is based on secular ideas, has 14 seats in the Parliament cannot really be called a theocracy.

Israel is no different from what a Kurdish state would be, or a Chechnyan one; restrictions on immigration to prevent becoming a minority is a neccesary but very unfortunate step. This is not a conclusion I have reached lightly; much thought has been put into it.

Bush's war-mongering and support of corporate imperialism is the reason for his support of Israel, not the other way around. I've explained my thoughts on this in detail before; if you wish me to do so, please say so and I will elaborate.

Rather then being at the very center of the problems with our Middle East policy, Israel is best described as being on the next layer; our support for it is based in some part on the want felt by Bush and the PNAC to reorganize the Middle East, along with Israel's many ties to the military-industrial complex, known more officially as the defense contractors.

Cases of genocide in Africa and Chechnya exceed those in the West Bank and Gaza by quite a degree; it would surprise me to learn that more then three or four hundred thousand have been killed throughout the entire course of the conflict. This is in contrast to, say, violence in Congo, which has claimed over a million lives.

[Saudade]

16. Darranar

Thank you for responding.

"The military does not really rule in Israel. Generals are often prime ministers because they are Israel's heroes; despite Sharon's despicable actions in Lebanon, his skill battling Egypt in 1973 was amazing and worthy of notice.

Israel is a democracy. The military does not rule there any more than corporate power rules here; in other words, no powerful blow is ever dealt to them, but blows are dealt and oppurtunities are spurned, even if they would help the parties mentioned."

I disagree with this. The fact that every PM in Israel is a military guy is more than symbolic. Have you read Tanya Reinhart's Israel/Palestine on this?

Israel has structural characteristics of a democracy, which is important, but it lacks democratic values, and the zionist concept is fundamentally in conflict with democracy, which is why Israel cannot tolerate the one-state solution.

"Cases of genocide in Africa and Chechnya exceed those in the West Bank and Gaza by quite a degree; it would surprise me to learn that more then three or four hundred thousand have been killed throughout the entire course of the conflict. This is in contrast to, say, violence in Congo, which has claimed over a million lives."

I do not doubt that more people have been murdered elsewhere than in Palestine, but that is not my point. My point is that the situation in Palestine gathers the focus of what is the progressive struggle everywhere, namely, the struggle against the anachronistic colonialist impulse over an extended period of time.

"Bush's war-mongering and support of corporate imperialism is the reason for his support of Israel, not the other way around. I've explained my thoughts on this in detail before; if you wish me to do so, please say so and I will elaborate."

Please elaborate. I do not disagree with you here, but do you really think that Bush would have invaded Iraq without Israel's pressure? Do you really think that Bush would be threatening Iran and Syria now without that pressure?


"Israel is not a theocracy in the true sense of the word; a theocracy is a government by a religious leader, and any government in which a secularist party, whose entire platform is based on secular ideas, has 14 seats in the Parliament cannot really be called a theocracy."

I agree, Israel is not a theocracy in the strict sense. But only the theocratic drive can explain the occupation, which is really a compulsion to annex the Biblical Homeland, i.e., the root of the problem now.

[Darranar]

17. Well...

I disagree with this. The fact that every PM in Israel is a military guy is more than symbolic. Have you read Tanya Reinhart's Israel/Palestine on this?

Israel has structural characteristics of a democracy, which is important, but it lacks democratic values, and the zionist concept is fundamentally in conflict with democracy, which is why Israel cannot tolerate the one-state solution.

Zionism is not in conflict with democracy. The basis of Zionism is that a Jewish state should exist in Palestine as a destination for refugees. I do not think that that is in conflict with democracy at all.

Let me ask you this question, Saudade: How would you endeavor to prevent another Holocaust? Zionism provides one solution; by process of elimination, it is the onyl one I am left with. Do you have a better one?

I do not doubt that more people have been murdered elsewhere than in Palestine, but that is not my point. My point is that the situation in Palestine gathers the focus of what is the progressive struggle everywhere, namely, the struggle against the anachronistic colonialist impulse over an extended period of time.

If you are saying that I/P is an EXAMPLE of what progressives should be standing up aginst/for (depending on how you look at it) then we agree.

Please elaborate. I do not disagree with you here, but do you really think that Bush would have invaded Iraq without Israel's pressure? Do you really think that Bush would be threatening Iran and Syria now without that pressure?

See the post I will soon post below. The answer to this is too much to put in here.

I agree, Israel is not a theocracy in the strict sense. But only the theocratic drive can explain the occupation, which is really a compulsion to annex the Biblical Homeland, i.e., the root of the problem now.

I think we agree here; however, neither the rabs nor the palestinians are really innocent in this conflict.

[Darranar]

18. About the Israel/Bush issue...

Israel does not have as much direct control over US foreign policy as some theorize. It is, rather, a spoke - not the hub - of the wheel that is the foreign policy of the US.

The hub is the interests of those who have power in the US - the elite. Through them come the interests of the corporations.

Reorganizing the Middle East so that oil will be more easily accessible and cheaper to produce - therefore knocking off foreign competitors - is one unspoken goal of the PNAC.

Additionally, defense contractors have extensive relationships with Israel that they would not deign to give up; another reason.

Israel and the GOUS are locked in a mutually beneficial relationship. One gets tons of aid and support, and the other gets support for their radical agenda in reorganizing the Middle East.

[rini]

36. when does hyperbole become a lie?

What rank was Golda Meir? Are you discussing a military career or national service?

[rini]

34. Holy Batman!

"Nowhere else on earth is the struggle between the rich and the powerless more palpable and urgent. Nowhere else are a specific people suffering such great injustice and horror as in Palestine. We are witnessing a great ironic tragedy, a genocide, like none other on earth."

Take a couple of aspirin and lie down, you are obviously overextended.

[Jim Sagle]

20. Thank you for adding a note of sanity.

[Darranar]

23. That's my job.

[Jim Sagle]

19. Pfffffffffffttttttttttt!!!!!!

[Gimel]

21. "Last week the obese third rate thug said the opposite"

Something must have happened to change his mind. Doh! I wonder what it was?

[Jim Sagle]

22. "obese third rate thug"? What is this, a Rush Limbaugh thread?

[Gimel]

40. It would seem so

Jim, I was responding to post 8. It is a quote from Saudade, I hope you realize.

[rini]

24. oh my goodness

do you not understand the difference between an elected official and a dictator? Never mind, the answer is obvious.

[bluesoul]

25. Elected officials

Milosevic was elected, Hitler was elected. Your point?