To deport or not to deport

[Fight_n_back]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=336076&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y


No matter where you turn, there seems to be someone
else offering the same counsel: Deport Yasser
Arafat. The advisers range from ordinary citizens
to military officers, politicians from the right
and center, and former left-wingers. "He is the
primary obstacle to reaching a settlement between
the peoples," they say, as if there were no other
daunting obstacles.

<<snip>>
True, Arafat is a thorny problem. He gets in the
way of Abu Mazen, disrupting his every move. He
does not permit him to push through the
fundamental reforms that the Palestinians took
it upon themselves to enact. Nevertheless, most
observers fail to see that the equation of
"either Arafat or Abu Mazen" is actually a
great deal more complex. For instance, if
Israel were to deport Arafat, it would seal the
fate of the Abu Mazen government. It doesn't
matter how intense the rivalry is between the
two; in response to Arafat's deportation, Abu
Mazen would have no choice but to resign from
his post as prime minister. In other words,
anyone wishing to exacerbate the state of
anarchy in the territories would do well to
take such a step, which would result in the
removal of Arafat and Abu Mazen alike.
<<snip>>
==============================================

[damnraddem]

1. 'Deport,' 'expel from the country.' Pray tell: what country?

Arafat is not in Israel. He is in an occupied territory that Israel has prevented from becoming part of a country. But it's an old Isreali story, as old as 1948: grab land, expel those who were on it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. Never satisifed

It's amazing. If Israel goes after terrorists by using military action, it is overreacting. So rather than just blast Arafat to hell for supporting and enabling terrorism, they talk about expelling him and that's wrong as well.

[tinnypriv]

3. Good to see opposition to the 4th geneva convention!

"Individual or mass forcible transfers ... from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive"

(article 49, 4th Geneva Convention)

BTW, expel means kill. Check the usage in the Israeli press - the connotations are explicit.

[StandWatie]

5. any examples?

as far as expel=kill?

[tinnypriv]

6. I could dig up the links if you like

Could take some time though.

The most recent example was a report in Ma'ariv (Heb newspaper section, bottom right of the online version) detailing expelling Arafat (must have been about a week ago now), where immediately after an "expelling" statement from a "general security service source", the very next comment was something like "of course, we expect him to resist".

I don't have access to the Israeli tv/radio stations (except Arutz Sheva, LOL :D), but apparently (according to Uri Aveney, usually a reliable source) the "expel=kill" connotations are even more widespread there. I couldn't verify that for sure, but it is credible enough to take very seriously I think.

Also, I'm not completely sure on this, but it is my understanding that "expel" is a harder form of "exile" (in general usage) hence used more vis a vis Arafat. Somebody who isn't an idiot on translations could probably clear that up ;-)

[jos]

4. Doubt they'd do it

They would lose their whipping boy. Too hot. Blame Arafat. Not enough rain. Blame Arafat.

[Fight_n_back]

7. Arafat is a golden boy

He has done nothing wrong in his life. He walks on water.

He is a shining example for liberals and leftists around the world to hold high.

Lets start a campaign to name schools after this brave soldier who has taken his people to where they are now.