March 28, 2002

8:30 AM

This is whyYasser Arafat's, and the Palestinian Authority(sic)'s days are severely numbered: the sham capture and release last year of the guy responsible for yesterday's massacre. My prediction: Israel will completely reoccupy the territories in the next three months to clean out the place.
posted by ParisParamus (55 comments total)

There's hardly enough detail in this article to justify calling it a 'sham capture and release'.
What are they supposed to do, execute every person who is implicated as a suspect or an accessory in suspicious activity?
We let murderers and rapists walk after just a few months or years in prison all the time.

This kind of hyperbolic simplification is exactly why the problem will just continue, not because the PA is entirely dishonest and the isrealis squeaky clean.
posted by milkman at 8:41 AM on March 28, 2002

We let murderers and rapists walk after just a few months or years in prison all the time.

Actually, we imprison them for years, life, or sentence them to death.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:47 AM on March 28, 2002

The only thing newsworthy about this bombing is that fact that Isreal hasn't responded yet. Perhaps they've hit on the novel idea that peace is best accomplished by NOT KILLING PEOPLE. In any case, the word "news" implies something "new" and there is nothing new about Palestinians and Isrealis bombing eachother. I don't see how this merits a thread.
posted by plaino at 8:53 AM on March 28, 2002

Israel will completely reoccupy the territories in the next three months to clean out the place.

i'm curious, Paris, just what do you mean by 'clean out the place'?
posted by milkman at 8:59 AM on March 28, 2002

I don't see how this merits a thread.

It's just Paris trolling. As Matt would say: Nothing to see here, move along...

A more interesting post would have been a thread on the Arab Summit in Beirut, the peace proposals presented there, and Israeli reaction...but then that would have required balanced argument and reasoned insight...
posted by mapalm at 9:01 AM on March 28, 2002

Still trolling.
posted by websavvy at 9:07 AM on March 28, 2002

I think you're wrong, websavvy: you should have linked the entire thread rather than that specific comment inside it.

You're right about the trolling thing, of course.
posted by anapestic at 9:14 AM on March 28, 2002

The only thing newsworthy about this bombing is that fact that Isreal hasn't responded yet.

Says you. . .

Apparently, you missed the irony that we had to stop bombing for Ramadan, while it was all but a given that the Israelis would get another bomb on Passover.

You're right about the trolling thing, of course.

Since when must an FPPoster be neutral on the topic they post? Sure, paris has a point of view. And so it would appear, do his hecklers, though they hide behind arguments of form rather than discuss substance.
posted by BentPenguin at 9:25 AM on March 28, 2002

I get the feeling that Paris would like the Israeli to "clean out the place".....
posted by preguicoso at 9:25 AM on March 28, 2002

Don't recall us actually stopping the bombing for Ramadan. It's all sort of an ugly blur at the moment, but can anyone confirm?
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:28 AM on March 28, 2002

i'm curious, Paris, just what do you mean by 'clean out the place'?

Meaning securing the territories, and then spending months, perhaps a few years, removing the arms, bombs and bomb-making materials found. And also, rounding up known terrorists. Since the PA has never had any interest in doing this, Israel has no choice.

The Territories are about half the size of Los Angeles County: It will be an awful undertaking.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:34 AM on March 28, 2002

Onto matters of substance:

The Israelis would be wise to realize right now that they are being duped into retaliatory cycle.

If the palestinians keep bombing, and they will of course, but the israelis stop retaliating, well, only then will world opinion come to see Arafat's game for what it is. Either way they lose lives, that can't really be stopped directly. It can onlybe renderd ineffective, and israeli tactics thus far have failed entirely in this crucial respect.

He doesn't want the west bank, and even if he settles for it now, its only as a staging area to build an army and go after it all.

The PLO used to call it "pushing them (the Israelis) back into the sea" but it now goes under the euphimistic "right of return."

And y'all still can't tell propaganda from news for shit. Which is a damn shame since most conflicts are played out according to how the press will interpret it.
posted by BentPenguin at 9:34 AM on March 28, 2002

I agree with BentPenguin. If the Israelis were to take a peaceful stance, and "turn the other cheek," as it were, they would be cast in a more positive light.
posted by schlaager at 10:21 AM on March 28, 2002

I figure Paris must be some sort of pro-Palestine troll using reverse psychology.

Shame of it is, it's working on me. The more I read this kind of blind, idiotic propaganda, the less I care for Israel.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:22 AM on March 28, 2002

I have serious doubts that Arafat is orchestrating attacks on Israel. It doesn't give him anything. While I think it may be possible that Arafat is turning a lind eye to Hamas and more radical groups, this is mainly a result of him needing to retain authority over the PLO movement.

Since his efforts towards peace were dashed by Rabin's assassination and Sharon's rise to power, Arafat has gone from high support for peace to being marginalized as a moderate because Israel is no longer listening or working with him. As the process stalls more and more, power and influence will shift back to more hard-line support for violence since Arafat can no longer point to the fact that no violence was moving them faster and faster towards a Palestine state.

Israel continues to shoot itself in the foot by demanding more tit than tat (and is quite happy to announce that they just want to kill more Palestinians than anything else).

Meanwhile the treatment of Palestinians as well as Jewish Arabs is pretty much spot-on how Jews were treated by Hitler leading up to WWII. They just don't bother with Stars of David because they go off of physical appearance instead.

If both sides went to the table, Israel Army officially stopped attacking Palistinians, Israel stopped all the 'settlements' and bulldozing of civilian homes, then I think progress could start again. Hamas will continue to makes attacks regardless of Arafat's position, but Hamas' support will erode quickly if the original plans for peace were concluded - simply because Hamas would then be shown to be waging more for the sake of violence instead of for a pretty valid purpose. The Palestinian authority could then crack down on them without loosing support from the mainstream and semi-fringe groups.

But Sharon doesn't want to be one that takes a punch to the face and doesn't retaliate, which is what you ahve to do if you want to actually solve the problem. Arafat has taken numerous punches to the face over the past 2 1/2 years without the typical response. I just think his supporters and the fringe groups like Hama have gotten tired of it.
posted by rich at 10:24 AM on March 28, 2002

rich: actually, Arafat is on video tape proclaiming that he will send waves of suicide bombers into Israel.
posted by aramaic at 10:39 AM on March 28, 2002

Rich, I think you hit the nail on the head.

Aramaic, I'm ready to be convinced if you can pull up a transcript or some footage. Otherwise, that means as much to me as hearing someone say that there were no jews in the world trade center, so Israel is behind 9/11.
posted by jragon at 10:45 AM on March 28, 2002

Even though it's from "antiwar.com," which can publish some pretty specious stuff, this article is worth a read regarding the discussions of this thread. It's short, and by author Ran HaCohen (a fairly well-known anti-occupation Israeli).
posted by cell divide at 10:48 AM on March 28, 2002

I am really disturbed to see so many people take the Palestinian side in this dispute. When you look at the cold, hard facts, Palestinians deliberately target civilians. The more massive the civilian loss of life, the better. Israelis, whatever their other faults, do not detonate explosives outside of toy stores. They at least putatively attack military targets.

In my mind, there is no equating the two sides' methods. And no other action by either side is nearly as important as killing. If the Palestinians would renounce violence and use passive means of resistance, world opinion would quickly mount for Israel to give in to most of their demands. Instead, they purposely kill innocents, which makes many here in the U.S. feel that the Israelis should have a free hand in dealing with them.

After the attack yesterday at the Seder, the Palestinians rank right up there with al Qeda as monstrous scum, who deserve to be destroyed root and branch along with their cause. If the Israelis decide to go in and clean them out, I'm all for letting them.
posted by CRS at 10:54 AM on March 28, 2002

Israelis aren't ever quoted as attacking civilians because whenever they kill civilians, it's always in the path of trying to find terrorists.

Big deal that a group of civilian palestinans rounded a corner with a newspaper reporter only to be gunned down by an Israeli tank because there was 'terrorist activity' in the area.

So what if Israeli helicopters and jets launch missles into 'Palestinian camps' with the intent to hit 'specific' terrorosts homes and just happen to take out a couple of extra tents that had women and children in it.

CRS, if you're going to make me, I will pull up the latest 'death tallies' from the AP and we can compare exactly how many civilians on either side have been killed.

I'm also going to mention the wholesale rounding up of any Palestinian males aged 14-50 on a regular basis, blindfolded and sent to 'central holding areas' that make camp x-ray look like a holiday vaction spot for rich European royalty.
posted by rich at 11:02 AM on March 28, 2002

It's pretty easy for North Americans to talk about how the Palestinians' methods are so unsound. From my couch, in my condo, it all seems pretty barbaric. I found it much easier to understand their motivation after reading this article from Harper's.

I don't sympathize with either side in this conflict. As an atheist, it all strikes me as ludicrous. But there has been a lot of blood shed by both sides. Anyone who claims that one side has the moral high ground should probably do a bit more research.
posted by websavvy at 11:09 AM on March 28, 2002

rich: If it's not too much to ask the Israelis to accept Hamas (a fringe element within the PA) blowing up their citizens on a regular basis in the hopes that they'll lose popular support, surely the Palestinians should have been able to accept Ariel Sharon (at the time a fringe element within the Israeli government) visiting the Temple Mount in the hopes that the Camp David II negotiations could have continued.

Or is political grandstanding that much more heinous of a crime than mass murder that it can never be tolerated?
posted by jaek at 11:10 AM on March 28, 2002

You just never quit, do you Paris? The thing is, you've done this so many times, and still people don't take the bait. As a troll you really suck, y'know that?
posted by jpoulos at 11:10 AM on March 28, 2002

Israelis aren't ever quoted as attacking civilians because whenever they kill civilians, it's always in the path of trying to find terrorists.

And Arabs shamelessly hide their military behind their own civilian population (see Iraq, see also Beirut). Its been standard operating procedure for so long, it makes one wonder how you can overlook that simple fact and make a statement like this.
posted by BentPenguin at 11:16 AM on March 28, 2002

Jaek; while I think the Palestinian reaction was overblown and wrongheaded, I have serious doubts Sharon went to Temple Mount in the hopes that the Camp David talks would continue. And while I still think the Palestinian reaction was wrongheaded, the resulting suppresive force the Israelis showed by trying to move in and take over the place to force an end to the armed reaction by the Palestines was a stupid idea, and was probably based in the category of trying to prove that Israel could still do whatever they wanted to.

Bent - as for hiding their military.. well, now, I wouldn't say 'Arabs'. I would say any seperatist force does the same thing. I don't see Egypt hiding its military, or Syria. But the IRA and Oranges in Northern Ireland, the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the KLA in Kosovo, the Chechnians, and yes, Al Qeida sort of half to. It would all be over if they didn't, since the more prepared and advanced force (weapons, size, training, etc) would easily wipe them out conventionally.

The Tamils I don't have much sympathy for (I used to about 8 years ago, but..), since they have consistently used cease-fires to just gain more territory and supplies before going on the offensive again. The KLA, before all of this Macedonia stuff I could side with, but now you're left with the guys who just want to fight because they ahve nothing better to do than hate. Chechnians.. well, I'm half and half there - the Russians have mishandled that situation just as badly as the Israelis. The IRA in general has really come around, although the hard liners are causing the most problems now while the Protestants are just being ugly about the whole thing.
posted by rich at 11:38 AM on March 28, 2002

rich & jragon: I can't find the footage online, but the speech was December 18, in Ramallah. Salient bits I remember include Arafat talking about giving 70 Palestinian martyrs for every Israeli killed, and a crowd chanting about millions of martyrs marching to Jerusalem.

It was broadcast on Palestinian media, and rebroadcast in a Western "newsmagazine" show (which is where I saw it).

Arafat & Sharon are both monsters, who should be locked up in a crate with each other and dropped into the ocean.
posted by aramaic at 11:42 AM on March 28, 2002

god, what is infuriating is the way people simplify this intensely complex situation and try to offer 'proof' about the barbarism of either side based on the latest news.

every faction in this conflict has lost credibility by trying to justify their actions according to specific actions on the other side. it's an ugly feud that needs to be ended, not won.

what is infuriating about Paris' post and arguments like it is that it shows the ugly, self-righteous side of the Isrealis and the Jews that is as historically reprehensible as anything the muslim world has mustered ideologically. It is tinted with a gross haze cast by a biblically mandated sense of entitlement which is just as irrational as any specious argument the Palistinians pull out of the Koran.
It is typical of a depressing tendency for Jews to cloak themselves in the armor of mythical victimhood, which is an insult not only to the people they have displaced in Palistine, but also to the memory of the millions of Jews who have been massacred througout history.

As a jew, I don't know what the right way to be angry at the Palistinians is. I don't know what the right course of action is. I am sick and conflicted and feel generally terrible. But the way my blood boils at irrational and self-rightous war-mongering in the name of 'my people' is clear and uncompromised.

We will not find peace this way.
posted by milkman at 12:15 PM on March 28, 2002

Rich: as for hiding their military.. well, now, I wouldn't say 'Arabs'. It would all be over if they didn't, since the more prepared and advanced force (weapons, size, training, etc) would easily wipe them out conventionally.

And in defending yourself against a foe who uses civilians as a shield, to attack you then, you would lay down your arms rather than strike a civilian?

As for your having "doubts about Arafat orchestrating..." this implies then that there's some sort of consensus about palestinian suicide attacks on civilians. The bottom line tho is that each time he is made to renounce the attacks and try to stop them, he says he will and invariably plays semantical limbo.

The sad thing is that arabic culture emphasizes winning at all costs. Loss of life is worse than losing face. And in Arab countries, your foes are not defeated until they are eliminated--exterminated. Compromise is a foreign concept.

The arab street wants a war, not compromise and the smart money knows this. The western press meanwhile is cluelessly recycling each side's propaganda into human carnage-driven ratings. This is sick shit by ANY western standards of morality and its about far more than just Israel, the West Bank and Jeruslem.

So go ahead and curse bin Laden while you sympathise with the palestinian cause. Its all part of the same problem and the have nots are headed *your* way, sooner than you think. I'm sure you'll be able to work out a reasonable agreement with them when the time comes.
posted by BentPenguin at 12:27 PM on March 28, 2002

The sad thing is that arabic culture emphasizes winning at all costs. Loss of life is worse than losing face. And in Arab countries, your foes are not defeated until they are eliminated--exterminated. Compromise is a foreign concept.

Care to back this up with any evidence, either factual or textual? Do you get your information from any specific source, or is this just general knowlege that you've picked up through the media?
posted by cell divide at 12:40 PM on March 28, 2002

Milkman: that you for attributing things to me I have never said or thought.

MY starting point is the founding of Israel in 1948 by international accord in the UN. And since then, both after and before 1967, Israel has been attacked again and again.

The Palestian Arabs want it ALL, explicitly, or by some BS "right of return" clause. And there is no justification for suicide bombing and the indiscriminate murder being committed by Palestinan Arabs.

If you are sickened by the debate, I am too, but that doesn't mean all sides are equal, or that Yasser Arafat, Hamas (love how "ham" is in that word!), Syria and most of the players on the anti-Israeli side should be loathed and overthrown.

Someone, please bump off Arafat. It's really time. Then, the Israelis will at least have a clear shot at Hamas, and their ilk.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:41 PM on March 28, 2002

If you are sickened by the debate, I am too

Then why don't you shut the hell up? How many threads have you started on the same topic? How many times have you said the same damned thing?
posted by anapestic at 12:46 PM on March 28, 2002

Since we're on the topic of reflexive reactions to Palistinian and Irsaeli actions, thought this might be an interesting link.
posted by billman at 12:53 PM on March 28, 2002

Less than five. Three, perhaps. Over the course of a year.
(Member since 3/27/01). But thanks for the compliment.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:58 PM on March 28, 2002

cell divide:
1- In 1970, palestinians in Jordan tried to wrest control away from Kng Hussein. Of all the countries where palestinians were taken in after 1948, only Jordan allowed them assimilate into its country ass citizens. Never the less, palestinians in Jordan felt the time was ripe to take control. So King Hussein slaughtered them. 10,000 by official count, whatever thats worth. End of (hussein's)problem. (You might recall that palestinian terrorists who permanently screwed up the olympics called themselves "Black September" in memoriam to the slaughtered)

2- Same deal, different ethnic groups in a small city in Syria called Hama. this time its 1980. Assad leveled the city, killed most everyone aiming to challenge him then rebuilt and repopulated it.

3- Saddam and the Kurds aka how to eliminate opposition and field test chemical munitions in one day's work.

A few months ago, right here on MeFi, someone recommended a very even handed accounting of whats really going on in the middle east, then and now. I read it, its fair and speaks the truth that neither side has an intereast in spreading, and its uglier than you can likely imagine. The book is called From Beirut to Jeruselem by Thomas Friedman. If you have an interest in this thread, you should read this book.

It splays out in full view the sick game being played out so duplicitously befre the rest of the world's eyes. And its nothing like what you read in the news. Its not about land, its not about ethnic identity. Its just grabbing as much power as you can get, at whatever the cost.

The Israelis were given swampland by the UN in 1948. So were the Palestinians. The Israelis got to work building a nation. The palestinians were told to evacuate while the surrounding arab nations got rid of the Israelis. They declined to take their piece of property which in some ways was far more valuable than the parcel the Israelis got. The rest is recent history.

The Israelis are far from perfect in this sad tale. But they were always minding their business and only grabbed land when they were attacked. Sure the west bank settlements suck. But calling this an occupation and demanding the right of return is just a bad faith telling of the story.

The real losers in all this (assuming the world survives the coming conflagration) is the UN, which has now reduced itself to less than worthless as a mediator between nations.
posted by BentPenguin at 1:18 PM on March 28, 2002

I have serious doubts that Arafat is orchestrating attacks on Israel. It doesn't give him anything.

One need only to read this thread to see what Arafat gains. Everytime one of these attacks occurs, there's a whole host of voices crying about how this really, really, really means Israel needs to leave the territories this time. Further, it's pretty clear the Palestinians realize this too; according to a recent PCPSR poll, "A majority of 61% [of Palestinians] believes that armed confrontations have helped achieve Palestinian national rights in ways that negotiations could not."

The Tamils I don't have much sympathy for (I used to about 8 years ago, but..), since they have consistently used cease-fires to just gain more territory and supplies before going on the offensive again

And this is different from the Palestinians how exactly? The Al-Aqsa intifada is a pretty blatant embrace of that strategy.
posted by boaz at 1:20 PM on March 28, 2002

Thanks, billman. good link.
posted by jnthnjng at 1:29 PM on March 28, 2002

The Israelis are far from perfect in this sad tale...

With all due respect, what does this mean? Who is perfect in any tale?
posted by ParisParamus at 1:30 PM on March 28, 2002

is it that arafat wouldnt or couldnt leave Ramalla. cause if he wouldnt, why not?
posted by clavdivs at 1:37 PM on March 28, 2002

While i agree that From Beirut to Jerusalem is a fantastic read, it's also true that Tom Friedman is -- though fairly even headed -- a lifelong pro-isreali advocate.

The really insightful stuff in that book, i think, is in the way it outlines the internal conflicts between the different kinds of Jews and why they are making Isreali policy impossibly complicated all by themselves.
posted by milkman at 2:02 PM on March 28, 2002

milkman:

making Isreali policy impossibly complicated all by themselves.

Good thing we don't do stupid stuff like that in the good ole USA :-)

Is there really a country that doesn't have at least a certain degree of internal conflict? I'm sure as Americans we get used to it but I can only imagine how the bickering between Congress and the President or between Democrats and Republicans must look to outsiders. Hell, we just spent several months debating who actually won the Presidency and just prior to that put our President on trial for getting blowjobs.
posted by billman at 2:23 PM on March 28, 2002

Here's my question. (Seriously curious. It's going to take me forever to even try to figure out what's going on. Just about to finish up "A Peace to End All Peace", and that only goes up to the 20s. So I'll proclaim my ignorance.). Anyway, why does anyone care about the UN resolution in 1947? I mean, since when is the UN a world government? Why not have the UN fix up N. Ireland and Taiwan, etc. It just doesn't make sense to me, to imagine the UN trying to determine who owns some land. Isn't that why we invented weapons?
posted by Wood at 3:16 PM on March 28, 2002

I don't think it is fair to say that Hamas is a fringe group. It has at least as much popular support among Palestinians as does Fatah (Arafat's faction). In fact, the popularity of Hamas directly inspired Fatah to create its own suicide bombing group, the Al-Asqua Martyrs' Brigade. Hamas and the AAMB are as much competing with one another as they are seeking to inflict harm on Israel, in the kill-Israeli-civilians derby.

The fundamental problem is this: although Israel can give up the settlements, and perhaps even show some flexibility on the Golan, it cannot ever concede the right of return. A large and well-armed minority of Palestinians can never be persuaded to abandon their claim to total rule of Israel proper, and sizeable majorities would insist upon the right of return in any event.

Israel will ultimately have to impose a solution, but not the radical one that PP suggests. It will give the settlers 24 hours notice to come back to Israel, establish a line of defense a few meters inside the '67 borders (Golan excepted) and build mine fields and electrified guard towers all along them.
posted by MattD at 3:24 PM on March 28, 2002

The Israelis are far from perfect in this sad tale. But they were always minding their business and only grabbed land when they were attacked.

Elementary history lesson:

May 15th, 1948: Israel declares independence, Arab armies declare war

April 9th, 1948: Massacre of at least 100 in Deir Yassin village.

April, 1948: Arab cities not part of Israel's slice of the partition occupied by Zionist armies. No Jewish village was occupied by Palestinians. 8 of 13 major Zionist attacks occur outside of partition boundaries. (source)

That book is one you should also read if you want to know more about the roots of the conflict. Very interesting stuff from Israeli historian Tom Segev.

I would delve into the other myths about the foundation of Israel you offer in your post, but Jews for Justice in the Middle East does it better. Check out their guide to the origin of the conflict. The sections on the partition and Statehood would be most pertinent to this conversation.
posted by cell divide at 3:27 PM on March 28, 2002

"It's all so depressing I can't really think about it," says a Western diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Regardless of who is to blame for what, there was an opportunity here which is in the process of being missed." As the Arab states extended an unprecedented offer of peace to Israel and as a US envoy stayed in place to mediate between Israelis and Palestinians, the Middle East yesterday braced itself for more war.

"The enemies of peace are escalating their attacks for a very clear reason: The peace process is succeeding. With every step toward peace that Israel and its neighbors take, the enemies of peace grow more desperate and more determined to lash out. They must promote fear because they know that hope is their undoing."

TV, newspaper, and blog reactions; summary of suicide bombings to date.

White House Favored Arafat Attendance at Arab League Meeting. Israeli media split on Tel Aviv's conditioning Yasser Arafat's attendance at the Beirut summit on his stopping anti-Israeli terror; liberals wanted to offer Arabs "hope," conservatives insisted on "no compromise" on fighting terrorism. Arab dailies predicted that Israel's rejection of the Saudi initiative would render it a non-starter.

Backgrounder: Brief Record of Arab Summits. As hundreds of Arab dignitaries arrive here for this week's Arab summit ... The downtown district of the Lebanese capital ... has been given a $10 million facelift paid for by Arab governments ... "Abdullah's various consultations are part of Jordan's efforts to put an end to the deterioration in the peace process ..."


Arab League on Summit -- Source Materials
The Arab Peace Initiative - full text
The Beirut Declaration - final communique from the summit (extracts)
Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia speech, and others

In his speech to the opening session Wednesday, Abdullah made a remarkable direct appeal to Israelis and said it is time for Israel to put its trust in peace "after it has bet on war for decades without success." Abdullah had tried to please hard-line and moderate Arab camps, broadening the requirements of the initiative that raised international interest when he floated it last month as Israeli-Palestinian violence escalated. The summit called on the US to work to resume peace negotiations and affirmed it will continue to abstain from setting up new relations with Israel as long as the deterioration continues.
posted by sheauga at 3:42 PM on March 28, 2002

Why not have the UN fix up N. Ireland

This (imho) would not be an option politically speaking, as both Ireland and the UK members are of the UN. It would particularly embarassing for the UK, as it would imply that for all their power in the UN as a peacekeeping force (ie, Afghanistan), they cannot control their own territory - this is also true of the Irish Republic, but to a lesser extent, as the 6 counties are not controlled by the Irish government.

That said, calling in the UN is a good idea in principle, but UN peacekeeping forces and teams are required more urgently off elsewhere, where they are really needed - Israel and the Palestinian territories, for one. There isn't exactly a full scale eruption of violence here, at the moment anyway. Long may that continue.

Also, the 1998 Good Friday agreement (as I write, that was signed 4 years ago today) actually is working, albeit slowly. Local government is in place. Decommissioning is happening on both sides, in fact another IRA announcement is imminent.

Going back to the conflict in Israel, to me it is clear that Arafat is no longer capable of controlling the different factions that comprise the PLO, who are causing havoc. Israel is being drawn into a tit for tat conflict (as has already been said), and the whole thing is starting to spin out of control. I don't think recent revelations concerning Saddam Hussein (compensating the families of suicide bombers) are going to help - Israel as a political and soverign entity will get more and more paranoid, as they are on their own as a non-Islamic nation in that part of the world. I think the same also applies in this era of Osama bin Laden....Israel feels its back is up against a wall, and it's lashing out.
posted by tomcosgrave at 7:15 PM on March 28, 2002

for what its worth, Paris is correct. unless bunnys fly out of arafats butt, he will be...gone in three months...PERHAPS THIS IS WHY ARAFAT IS NOT AT THE SUMMIT."The downtown district of the Lebanese capital ... has been given a $10 million facelift paid for by Arab governments"...so what...do you know what has become of lebanon since the PLO came (does it matter whom invited whom) 10$ M for what...ferns, asphalt for the motorcades and some band-aids. why has not anyone drawn a comparison of nation building to say, India. Those people tried SO HARD...and still the anger. What Peace? At what price. No, Arafat needs to go, let the cards fall where they may...so to say.
posted by clavdivs at 7:21 PM on March 28, 2002

Hmmm, tomcosgrave, but as I understand it the proper analogy wouldn't be "calling in the UN". But the UN just sort of voting on what the proper resolution should be in N. Ireland, with maybe some testimony by the locals.
posted by Wood at 7:23 PM on March 28, 2002

"But the UN just sort of voting on what the proper resolution should be in N. Ireland, with maybe some testimony by the locals." sorry, but taken wrong that is akin to outsourcing 'Black and Tans'.
posted by clavdivs at 7:29 PM on March 28, 2002

(thanks for trying sheauga, milkman)

(looks about room)

(shakes head)

(walks away)
posted by rich at 7:58 PM on March 28, 2002

Wood, the situation is a concern of the UN because the problem was handed over to the newly-created UN by the British in 1947, after a good few years of mainly Zionist terrorism (Stern gang, Irgun) which made the mandate unworkable. No-one liked the partition plan it came up with, and in any case, civil war in 1948 made the plan irrelevant. So it's kind of unfinished UN business. (And not, as some would have it, self-determination.)

The UN isn't being 'called in' to intervene in Israel as a 'world government', but as the organisation that was asked to sort things out in the first place. The UN and Israel are strange peers, inextricably linked by history. Here's a bad analogy, but it sort of works: imagine if someone asked to mind a car takes it to a mechanic when it starts misfiring, and before he gets a chance to work on it, the owners of the car start fighting over it. You get a heap of car parts, some better than others, and an embarrassed mechanic.

As for the current situation, here's another analogy: if you treat people like savages, don't be surprised if they behave like them. (follows rich.)
posted by riviera at 8:20 PM on March 28, 2002

In 1923, Jabotinsky published two works under the title The Iron Wall’. In these pieces, Jabotinsky argued that the ‘sole way’ to an agreement with the Arabs was through an ‘iron wall, that is to say, the establishment in Palestine of a force that will in no way be influenced by Arab pressure. In other words, ‘the only way to achieve a settlement in the future is total avoidance of all attempts to arrive at a settlement in the present.’

Is the "Iron Wall" or Berlin Wall approach even realistic in this networked world? It's been problematic in California.

Looking forward a little farther than next week, Mr. Arafat is not a young man. Even without Israeli intervention, he has at most 25-30 years left, tops. So what comes next? Has anyone even started talking about technological cooperation and a joint Israeli-Arab economic development strategy? Solar energy and desalination would be two obvious choices.

This month the isolated West Bank Palestinian village of Arab-Ka'abneh began receiving electricity for the first time. The day after nine photovoltaic solar panels were installed on the roof of the elementary school, villagers cheered as lights went on in the school and health clinic.
posted by sheauga at 8:20 PM on March 28, 2002

puts 'kick me' sign on richs back. "Solar energy and desalination would be two obvious choices" am i missing something here...i mention a plausable comparison...india-pakistani problems circa same frikkin time as the 47' Palestine issue...and what....iron wall in california? " I have serious doubts that Arafat is orchestrating attacks on Israel" can i borrow your logic for a minute (tosses out window) are you nuts? This guy is knee deep. If he is not directly related WHO IS. and if he cant control his bombers. FIND SOMEONE WHO CAN. either way, hes gotta go. im right you are wrong. yes im a little miffed but come on people, THINK MINK.
posted by clavdivs at 8:44 PM on March 28, 2002

So it's kind of unfinished UN business. (And not, as some would have it, self-determination.)

So, where does one go to tell the UN that they've really done quite enough? To use an analogy, if a mechanic messes up fixing your car, it's generally better to take it to a different mechanic the second time round. Except that in this case, the first mechanic keeps calling, and, while you really don't want to hurt his feelings, there's no way in hell you're letting him touch your car again.

if you treat people like savages, don't be surprised if they behave like them. (follows rich.)

Corollary: It is impossible to simultaneously reward savagery and eliminate it. The same exclusion applies equally to ignoring and excusing savagery as well.
posted by boaz at 11:24 PM on March 28, 2002

clav: find someone who can

any suggestions?

if the political situation is so simple there that it can be controlled by any Palistinian leader, then do us the favor of making some suggestions.
posted by milkman at 5:41 AM on March 29, 2002

hannah ishwheri i just butchered her name but she seems workable.
posted by clavdivs at 9:15 AM on March 29, 2002