Is liquidating arafat the answer?

January 31, 2002 1:03 AM

Is liquidating arafat the answer? Ariel sharon claims that he should have liquidated Yasser Arafat in 1982, when perhaps he had the oppurtunity. Surely this is sharon diplomacy at its best.
posted by johnnyboy (38 comments total)

I'm afraid that these statements are not going to garner the support and goodwill of the international community. perhaps trying him as a war criminal is not such a monserous proposition.
posted by johnnyboy at 1:05 AM on January 31, 2002

perhaps trying him as a war criminal is not such a monserous proposition

trying who? Ariel Sharon? That's a great idea!
posted by twistedonion at 1:39 AM on January 31, 2002

twistedonion: I third that motion.
posted by phalkin at 1:43 AM on January 31, 2002

Fourth. It takes at least two parties to make a mess this big. I'm all for spreading the recrimination around. The victims are also the victimizers, from almost any sound perspective.
posted by donkeyschlong at 1:49 AM on January 31, 2002

Arafat is old and frail. His assassin will be his own heart. Who comes after Arafat?
posted by pracowity at 2:00 AM on January 31, 2002

This isn't Sharon diplomacy at its best, it is the only diplomacy Sharon knows.

Of course in 1982 he had plenty of experience of liquidation:

"Nearly 20 years ago the man who is now Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, sent Lebanese militiamen into the Palestine refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla. When they left 36 hours later at least 800 people lay dead after a rampage of murder, torture and rape."

posted by niceness at 3:24 AM on January 31, 2002

Well, from what I've heard, it would be hard to convict Sharon, proving that he knew what was going on. Still, that's one hell of a 'youthful indescression', and it's kind of disappointing that the Israelis would elect someone with such a past.

And demanding that Arafat stop the terrorist groups while simultaneously keeping him contained and destroying all his mechanisms of power just defies logic to such an extent that I don't even see how they can claim it as their plan with a straight face!
posted by delmoi at 3:56 AM on January 31, 2002

It's astonishing that anyone at this point could find the idea of assasinating Arafat anything worse than "unconstructive." He is an evil, disgusting individiual who should be assasinated, but for the reality that that which replaces him will be worse (I disagree with this proposition: there is no "worse" for Palesinian Arabs). Actually, Arafat's already been, essentially, replaced. It will be enjoyable to watch him either get hit by an errant bomb in Ramallah, or just die.

Last week in Lebanon, the leader of the Christian militia which effected the 1992 massacres (supposedly at the direction of the Israeli army and thus Mr. Sharon) of Palestinian Arabs in two refugee camps was assasinated, in all likelyhood by Syria (which controls part, or all of Lebanon). It is interesting to note that while Ariel Sharon has been sued for said massacre, the Christian leader has not.

Take the set of people who hate Ariel Sharon, and as a proof of their moral blindness (or moral depravity), compare it to the set of people who believe the United States deserved 9/11/01; or would oppose taking out Syria, or Iran or Iraq or North Korea. It's basically the same group--what a surprise! And thankfully, it's a tiny group which exerts no effect on American foreign policy. As for the Europeans, well, even they criticize Israel but do little more (VIVE LES EURO ECONO-WHORES!).
posted by ParisParamus at 5:12 AM on January 31, 2002

just defies logic

Maybe your logic, but not logic.

P.S.: notice how the entire Arab world cowers when Israel finally acts? The truth is that the Israelis care more about the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza than any of their supposed "brothers."
posted by ParisParamus at 5:15 AM on January 31, 2002

I am no big fan of Arafat and/or Sharon, but all things being equal, this statement is terroristic in nature.

Sharon came in power riding on the tide of Israeli feeling that something had to be done about the conflict, unfortunately with power, and he wouldnt let this feeling calm down. Its simple.

The hawks on the Palestinian side never let the peace last, nor do the hawks on the Israeli side. One keeps sending suicide bombers and the other keeps sending tanks and f-16's.

It is outrageous every time Israeli tanks go in they also take with them a couple of buldozers and destroy a couple of homes, in order to build further settlements.

It is as outrageous as the palestinians having no real leadership. I would rather see every palestinian in Gaza break the curfew, sit out on the curb and sip some of that delicious tea.

I talked to a Palestinian friend of mine lately, to get more knowledge about the issues. He said that in the early days, Jews thought better to live in this area than go to europe where they were being prosecuted. He said that the Jews have always lived there among the Arabs and there is no problem. His problem is with the Zionists, he said, and the Zionist mindset.

A right wing Christian friend of mine at work, told me that he supports that their should be an Israel as mentioned in the Bible, even though the Jews don't accept us Christians and the Israeli Christians dont accept us as true Christians.

To be honest, I fear terrorists the same as the Zionists. And also those who attempt to juxtapose differing political view with anti-semitism.
posted by adnanbwp at 5:51 AM on January 31, 2002

It will be enjoyable to watch him either get hit by an errant bomb in Ramallah, or just die.

Anyone who enjoys watching someone else die loses any possible claim he might have ever had to moral superiority. Your statement disgusts me.
posted by anapestic at 6:08 AM on January 31, 2002

Is liquidating arafat the answer?

What's the question? It sure doesn't seem to be How acheive peace.

Or justice.
posted by Loudmax at 6:10 AM on January 31, 2002

Anyone who enjoys watching someone else die loses any possible claim he might have ever had to moral superiority. Your statement disgusts me.

Hitler? Stalin? Saddam? Osama? Mason? A garden-variety mass-murderer? I'm not talking about torture; just satisfaction about hearing the news of their death. And I am morally superior to these people: this isn't a close call.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:26 AM on January 31, 2002

I'm not talking about torture; just satisfaction about hearing the news of their death.

Uh huh. Here's what you said:

It will be enjoyable to watch him either get hit by an errant bomb in Ramallah, or just die.

As for moral superiority:

Hitler? Stalin? Saddam? Osama? Mason? A garden-variety mass-murderer? And I am morally superior to these people: this isn't a close call.

You're setting the bar pretty low, aren't you?
posted by anapestic at 6:34 AM on January 31, 2002

Does anyone really still care what happens to these irrational thugs, outlaws and violence-mongers? So long as they don't destroy the world in their barbarism, let them settle it amongst themselves. And let the rest of the world view the "winner" with suspicion, at a distance, for a long, long time.
posted by rushmc at 6:49 AM on January 31, 2002

To be honest, I fear terrorists the same as the Zionists.

Oh, thank you so much for your honesty.

A right wing Christian friend of mine at work, told me that he supports that their should be an Israel as mentioned in the Bible, even though the Jews don't accept us Christians and the Israeli Christians dont accept us as true Christians.

What the fuck are you talking about? Your post is one on the most ill-informed pieces of garbage I've ever run across here. This kind of shit belongs on Free Republic.

posted by nagchampa at 7:21 AM on January 31, 2002

not a question merely a thought provoker. I certainly think that the mid-east has seen too much blood split. We may fight over land but eventually the land takes us. Euro econo-whores?, thrown your rattle out of the pram again.
posted by johnnyboy at 7:35 AM on January 31, 2002

Rushmc:
Your first phrase pretty much nailed it - most of the US does not care about what is happening in Palestine; most people in the US are not even aware of the situation on the ground. There is almost no reporting of the daily horrors of the illegal Israeli Occupation, specifically, house demolitions (often at night, unannounced, while families are sleeping), shootings of proesters (including many children), secret detentions, destruction of orchards, arbitrary closures of check-points (including forbidding pregnant women to cross to get to a hospital), and the list goes on.

These are daily acts of violence and terror, and frequently go unreported. Instead, we hear on the news of a "relative period of calm" (Dec. 20 or so thru mid-January) when only one Israeli is killed. This belies the truth of the situation: that more than 20 Palestininas were killed by the Israeli army during this time (including children, unarmed, not to mention assassinations), and that the Occupation is a brutal daily reality for hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees.

Fortunately, in Israel at least, there are voices of reason (the newspaper Ha'aretz is a good source) who are calling into question the insanity of Israel's current policy (and leadership). The most recent sign of hope is the announcement by a group of 50 or so officers and soldiers on reserve in the army that they will no longer agree to serve their time in the Occupied Territories.

As for Arafat, he is under seige by the Israelli army on one side, and by more radicalized portions of the Palestinian population (not even close to a majority, though) on the other. The fact that there is even a discussion of killing him just shows the egregious lack of fairness that is brought to the table by many in the west when it comes to addressing this conflict. Anthony Zinni, the "mediator" sent by Bush to the Mid-East, has even taken to calling Arafat an unviable partner, while referring to Sharon as "Papa Bear." How can he possibly be fair in dealing with the problem?

Once again, though, the solution to the conflict here is actually quite simple: end this Occupation. It is the longest running Occupation in the world right now; it daily obliterates hope and feeds bitterness; and nothing, nothing will be resolved until Israel pulls out of these occupied lands. And in Israel, at least, some people are beginning to realize that, and advocate such a move. As usual, though, American supporters of Israel are just a little behind the curve.
posted by mapalm at 7:40 AM on January 31, 2002

adnanbwp: A right wing Christian friend of mine at work, told me that he supports that their should be an Israel as mentioned in the Bible, even though the Jews don't accept us Christians and the Israeli Christians dont accept us as true Christians.

nagchampa: What the fuck are you talking about? Your post is one on the most ill-informed pieces of garbage I've ever run across here. This kind of shit belongs on Free Republic.

If you were going to disagree with what adnanbwp said, perhaps you should have quoted something he said, and not something a friend of his said (I may be misreading it, but I didn't get the impression that adnanbwp was necessarily agreeing with the friend he quoted). And some rational reasons for your disagreement with him would be more effective (and add more to the thread) than swearing at him and throwing "Free Republic" in there for good measure.
posted by biscotti at 8:33 AM on January 31, 2002

U.S. policy in the middle east: a 2 state solution, with the Palestinians on some form of state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Arial Sharon's official policy, and the policy his party is based on: There can never be a Palestinian state.


George Bush: "You're either with us, or against us"
posted by cell divide at 8:49 AM on January 31, 2002

ParisParamus, I'm jut glad you're as powerless as I am in all this. Continue to offend at will but thank God you're not making any decisions.
posted by scarabic at 8:54 AM on January 31, 2002

Can we please try to keep Orwellian doublespeak off Mefi and call it for what it is -- liquidate = murder. I have never understood how Sharon and Arafat, both mass murderers who should be in the Hague awaiting trial, are supposed to bring peace to the country.

As a man sow shall he reap, and I know that talk is cheap (Bob Marley)

posted by fellorwaspushed at 8:56 AM on January 31, 2002

Note that Sharon is not now suggesting the liquidation of Arafat, and notes that Arafat still has an opportunity to make a peace agreement. In 1982, Arafat was a terrorist leader in exile who was unabashedly responsible for thousands of dead Israelis. The FPP wording is extremely inflammatory.

cell divide, that is a blatantly distortion, given that nobody in Israel has called for the destruction you assume they want. It would be more accurate to say:

Israeli policy:
No Palestinian state unless Israel's security is guaranteed.

Palestinian policy, judging by behavior:
Peace agreements are temporary pending the destruction of Israel.

Alas, many supporters of the Palestinian Authority -- most prominently, in recent years, Iran -- seem to believe that the utter destruction of Israel is a worthwhile goal {many sources}: Iran seems to think that the Islamic world could sustain a nuclear war while using a few nukes to completely melt the land of Israel. Crazy talk? They don't have nukes? They will soon.

The truth is we can't really know what's in Arafat's mind. Many people who have dealt with him in person believe he is committed to the two-state solution; others who have known him longer (e.g. Sharon) believe he is possibly nothing more than a terrorist himself. In any case, hardly anyone can say today -- whatever their lean on this question -- that Arafat is indeed capable of delivering a secure peace for Israel. What has happened since the beginning of the intifada is the change in Israeli opinion such that Arafat has become irrelevant. Israel is single-mindedly pursuing one paramount goal: security. If Arafat cannot, or will not, deliver that, why should Israel continue to negotiate? It will never get what it wants. There's nothing in the deal for them.

Previous agreements, viz. Oslo, indicate that Israel is fully willing to trade land for peace. The question today, however, has been turned on its head. Are the Palestinians prepared to trade peace for land?

Alas, many people continue to believe that "the Palestinian people want peace". Take a look at the photographic evidence your newspaper isn't showing you {scroll down}. Extremists, yes, and surely there are moderates. But the experience of the intifada is that extremists cannot be controlled by the PA -- or the PA chooses not to control them. That makes the extremists the drivers of policy on both sides.

Palestinian with bloody hands after ripping apart Israeli policeman.

Palestinian child dressed as suicide bomber, an adorable little picture.

The western media rarely shows such images. Why not?
posted by dhartung at 9:18 AM on January 31, 2002

is liquidation anything like rendering?
posted by quonsar at 9:19 AM on January 31, 2002

Last week in Lebanon, the leader of the Christian militia which effected the 1992 massacres (supposedly at the direction of the Israeli army and thus Mr. Sharon) of Palestinian Arabs in two refugee camps was assasinated, in all likelyhood by Syria (my bold) (which controls part, or all of Lebanon). It is interesting to note that while Ariel Sharon has been sued for said massacre, the Christian leader has not.

ParisParamus: Are you being willfully disingenuous or just ignorant of the situation? If not then why did you conveniently leave out the highly relevant fact that the leader of the Christian Militia - Hobeika (who you claim was likely to have been killed by Syria), was due to testify against Ariel Sharon in connection with the Sabra and Shatila massacres. Syria and others have had plenty of time since 1982 to kill him, so why would they wait till this particular moment when Sharon is the main beneficiary?

"Days before his death, Mr Hobeika said he had important revelations to make about the killings in the Belgian case - in which Mr Sharon is being accused of crimes against humanity."
posted by niceness at 9:25 AM on January 31, 2002

Distortion, Dan?

From the Likud party platform: "The government will oppose the establishment of an independent Palestinian state."

That has been the consistent policy of the Likud party since its inception. Sharon has been its biggest backer and the architect of the settlement policy-- a policy whose goal is to make certain there can never be an independent Palestinian state. I'm not making this up, it is the Likud Party line. It's why they exist.

On Oslo, far from proving that Israel would do land for peace, it proved quite the opposite. During the Oslo process, Israel added over thousands of new settlers to the occupied territories, and confiscated many hundreds of plots of land.

And just what is your purpose in resorting to posting vile pictures? Do you really think the same ones don't exist on the other side? You really must be slipping if the best argument you've got is to show disgusting photos.
posted by cell divide at 9:29 AM on January 31, 2002

got to love those gosh-darn hilarious israeli's. perhaps a better discussion would be why we still support israel.
posted by wantwit at 9:55 AM on January 31, 2002

Y'all are suckers for a trolling FPP.

And from the likes of your posts, many failed to read the full statement by Sharon. (He was acknowledging that a Palestinian state in the west bank was a done deal, one way or another).

"Games without Frontiers..."
posted by BentPenguin at 10:36 AM on January 31, 2002

Once again, though, the solution to the conflict here is actually quite simple: end this Occupation. Yes, but Israel has made this nearly impossible with their constant building of settlements. It is one thing to win a war and occupy territory, but quite another to move thousands of your citizens onto that territory and then refuse to end the occupation because you need to stay and protect your citizens. It's an Israeli-built Catch 22.
posted by Mack Twain at 10:48 AM on January 31, 2002

Arafat is a terrorist, but he's not as evil as some of the other groups who will vie for power as soon as he croaks.
posted by catatonic at 11:57 AM on January 31, 2002

You're setting the bar pretty low, aren't you?

Arafat is a two star tyrant/murder, whereas Saddam is a three, and the others four. The million miserable in Gaza? His fault. OK?
posted by ParisParamus at 2:07 PM on January 31, 2002

Eventually the end would be two states. Israel and Palestine. With Palestine having some control over the area where the Al-Aqsa mosque is. By the way the mosque with the gold dome is not the Al-Aqsa mosque. Most Muslims dont even know that.

The question rises about the fate of the refugees in the neigboring countries. The last peace process deal couldnt go through because of this question. Israeli position is not to allow the refugees get back in because this they say will create a dispropotionate population.

These refugees are not only refugees because of the wars but even prior to them they had been made to leave their lands. I think the refugees have all the right to come to their lands in the state of Palestine.

As lons as Sharon and Arafat are considered, Both of them are insignificant. Cuz these morons dont have the moral ground to utter the word peace.

Gutt Feeling: We will have 10 more years of bloodshed on both sides. Then a new generation of Israelis and Palestinians will take place of the morons. And then they will both agree to what they should have agreed to at present.
posted by adnanbwp at 2:38 PM on January 31, 2002

Gutt Feeling: We will have 10 more years of bloodshed on both sides...

I think you are projecting western societal develpment onto the Islamic world. Given that Iran opted for theocracy in the early 1980's; the Islamic world has not gotten poorer, and less democratic, and more irrational. So, hopefully I'm wrong.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:40 PM on January 31, 2002

cell: and yet, for such an implacable position, Sharon was ready to accept a Palestinian state last June -- a position reiterated in October, and consonant with proposals going back to 1999. This position was backpedaled significantly after the Zeevi assassination: from the Israeli point of view, they opened up the possibility of a settlement, and were rewarded with more violence.
posted by dhartung at 5:35 PM on January 31, 2002

"Accepting" a Palestinian State while continuing the Occupation and expanding settlements is disingenuous at best. Sharon has no intention of accepting a viable Palestinian state, i.e., one not bisected by roads and settlements into tiny bantustans.
posted by mapalm at 7:55 PM on January 31, 2002

Liquidating Arafat is not just the answer: it is the final solution. All together now,
Liquidation, escalation,
Hi tucka haw,
Throw a bomb upon 'em,
Turkey in the straw!
Fiddle-diddle-dee, [PAN OUT to reveal Gaza burning]
posted by EngineBeak at 9:53 PM on January 31, 2002

dhartung, just because Sharon says he'll accept a Palestinian state on 56% of the West Bank, with no control of water, sea, or air rights, with no part of Jerusalem, without territorial continuity of some of the largest Palestinian towns in the West Bank, and with hundreds of thousands of settlers and their armies surrounding most urban areas does not make him a peace maker or even in line with US policies. It's a sham and a non-starter, and is, as you say, consistent with Likud policy for some time. It is just another way to say there will never be a viable, independent and lasting Palestinian state.

The point is not that Likud and Sharon wants to destroy the Palestinians (this is the realm of the more extreme Right Wing parties), but they are fundamentally opposed to an independent and viable Palestinian state, which is the only solution that will ever bring peace.
posted by cell divide at 11:58 PM on January 31, 2002

Is liquidating Arafat the answer?

No.
posted by verdezza at 12:29 AM on February 1, 2002