Israeli Ultimatum:
October 20, 2001 1:36 PM   Subscribe

Israeli Ultimatum: looks like the PA is soon to be history: Palestinian Culture Minister Yasser Abbed Rabbo, meanwhile, rejected Israel's ultimatum to hand over the suspects, saying the [Palestenian Authority] would not fall in to what he called an "Israeli trap".
posted by greyscale (25 comments total)
I imagine most metafilter'ers have seen this but what is interesting seems to be that the PA is finally being forced to make a decision about their formal associations with the extremist Palestenians and what affect that will have on their future. Seems there is a dramatic shift right in Israeli policy since Sept 11 and while the PA has appeared to support its extremist affiliates it will be good to see it forced to make a formal decision about associations. Since I don't live over there my opinions are relatively uninformed -- any comments/insight about what is happening since Sept 11 or what possibilities are anticipated?
posted by greyscale at 2:12 PM on October 20, 2001

war. i mean. war. they(Israelis) mean business. killing a cabinet member is the line crossed. Arafat is next and noone will protect him. These people trashed Lebanon and cannot behave like a civilized culture. I gauged reactions of some Israeli friends when Rabin was killed. let us say they did not mourn to much. No, its turn over all the known active terrorists or Arafat is next. bottom line. remember when arafat addressed the U.N. with a pistol on his belt? well that little stunt almost got him killed. Arafat is no longer an untouchable.
posted by newnameintown at 2:55 PM on October 20, 2001

I read an an article in the Evening Standard yesterday (self-link as I had to type it out) which summarised how Israel's policy has turned kinda, erm, worse, especially in light of this assassination (not a targeted killing in this sense of course..). With comments like ""A new era has started, and what was before will never be again" and ""The era of Yasser Arafat is over" indicates a) Sharon likes the word era, and b) he's mighty pissed off and is going to be very stubborn about not using tanks to shell the Palestinians..

Didn't that guy resign from the Israeli goverment a few days before complaining they were too soft on the Palestinians?
posted by Mossy at 4:01 PM on October 20, 2001

The unmentioned irony: the minister --a far right nut but bigtime military her--resinged because he did not like what he perceived to be a soft approach to the problems in the region. That is democracy. But the single voice coming out of the opposition (Arabs) is No soft approach. Arafat in fact can not seemingly conrol anything any longer, so I suspect that is what was meant by the New Era remark.
But the US needs a peace in the region in order to keep the Arab/Muslims palying ball with us in Afghanistan. A real war between these people would mess up the coalition. So bad is the American need that Bush has taken Hamas off the terrorist list--for 6 months! subject to renewal. That's are war on terrorism.
posted by Postroad at 7:22 PM on October 20, 2001

link the hamas "off the list 'posty, i dont buy it. (though hamas is not known for international terrorist actions)
posted by newnameintown at 7:36 PM on October 20, 2001

This is the first killing of an Israeli government personal at the hands of the palestinians since 1948. Israel has been catagorically involved in "targeted killings" -read planned, daylight murders- of Palestinian government personals, intellectuals, professors, civilian men, women and stone throwing children. This does not include Palestinian terrorists/freedom fighters/assailants/rebels. Add to that severe blockade of the Palestinian areas not allowing Palestinian labor force to get any work.

A new era started when the zionists took over Palestinian lands.

A new era started when Sabra and Chatilla refugee camp massacre took place.

A new era happens every time there is talk of peace.

A new era happened when the Israelis elected Sharon as their prime minister.

Now he talks about a new era. Bull shit. he cant blame it all on the palestinians. There are bull shit hawks on both the sides. Imagine the deceased minister resigning that the Israeli government is too "soft" on the palestinians.

If this is a new era.. then its an era where both sides should seek help from some psychiatrists.

Sharon and Arafat.

Murderer Bastards.
posted by adnanbwp at 8:45 PM on October 20, 2001

its time to divide them in half, give each their own country, each recognized by the international community. Put a 1 mile buffer zone in between, fences on each size of the one mile zone UN (US/UK whoever) bases in between and whoever shoots, throws stones, attacks, gets it.
posted by jbelshaw at 9:40 PM on October 20, 2001

Oh hell. They've been working toward this for years. Let the Palestinians and the Israelis have at one another and let the Good Lord sort them out.
posted by MAYORBOB at 9:49 PM on October 20, 2001

jbelshaw, it's not easy as that. Many Jews believe that the messiah will not come till the temple of Solomon is rebuilt. Luckily, the temple (or remains there of) are on the exact spot at which Mohammad left earth to go to heaven! So what you have is a shared religious facility which both religions would fight to the death to have (I'm not even including Christianity into this mess, Christians don't seem to care as much as the Muslims and Jews).

The real problem lies in that each party is as much as fault for screwing things up. Israelis have been pushy with some land that is rightfully not theres. Palestinians are tired of living in refugee camps so they suicide bomb buildings. This causes extreme segregation/harassment of anyone looking like a Palestinian.

This leaves about three options. Everyone agrees to live with each other (no way that's going to happen). Jerusalem becomes like a "Vatican" (that won't happen either). A war breaks out and the decisive victor gets control of the land (most likely scenario as of now. Of course the Arab world would all help their Palestinian friends and the Western world would need to defend Israel).

No way will this be solved with a cut-and-dry-everyone-is-happy solution. It'll be yucky, but what can you do about it?
posted by geoff. at 9:58 PM on October 20, 2001

its time to divide them in half

how are they going to divide jerusalem in half? which part's holier?
i'm still eagerly awaiting for that link from postroad.
posted by elle at 10:04 PM on October 20, 2001

geoff., you are correct. What do you do with Jerusalem? We were dicussing this very subject in the office the other day. You could "Vatican"-ize it, but that is unlikely solution. So what do you do? Step away and let them slug it out? Israel would probably crush Palestine, but then Israel would be attacked by all the other countries in the region.
posted by jbelshaw at 10:18 PM on October 20, 2001

Carpet-bomb the whole region with ecstasy, lsd, and viagra.
posted by nikzhowz at 10:39 PM on October 20, 2001

Uh, while Arafat kept his omnipresent holster (you know, he's so attached to guerrilla chic), he surrendered the pistol before entering the General Assembly hall. Not that it matters to most repeating this story; some even say he brandished it in his hand.

And yes, the White House has done Palestine (and in a broader objective the peace process) a favor by keeping Hezbollah and Hamas off the list of terrorist organizations subject to asset freezes and other sanctions. See the NY Times analysis of the terrorist organizations named in the latest executive order, though they remain listed under the State Department's more comprehensive accounting of terrorist groups. Primary sources: White House's EO 13224 [pdf]; State's Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Note that in the former there is a new class of terrorists called SDGTs or Specially Designated Global Terrorist Entities. Hamas is an FTO but not an SDGT.

While some Jews may wish to rebuild the Temple of Solomon, the official position of Israel has been and is that the Temple Mount is controlled by the Muslims. The status talks regarding the sovereignty of East Jerusalem -- which is the part given to Jordan during the partition, and conquered by Israel in 1967 along with the rest of the West Bank -- is supposed to be part of the next step in the (now presumably Norwegian Blue) Oslo accords.

It's not nearly that they can't agree on dividing the country. It's that Israel hasn't behaved in its occupation and whether run by left or right has barrelled ahead in creating settlements and the locked-down infrastructure to support them, leaving the territories as a patchwork quilt of checkpoints and humiliating views across militarized fences.
posted by dhartung at 11:04 PM on October 20, 2001

As a cynic I would like to point out that assassination couldn't have come at a better time for the Israelis and a worse time for the Palestinians.

Israel has suddenly found itself on the outside looking in at an anti-terror coalition, with both Blair and Bush making noises about a Palestinian state. Since 9/11 Sharon has been going out his way to agitate the Palestinian's into conflict so they too could come under the 'war on terrorism' heading while Arafat has been working diplomatic channels to ride the coalition wave..

This makes me wonder: fringe politician, disliked by his own government resigns and then goes about without a security detail and gets shot..

I find myself wondering if there was a bulls-eye on his back and who painted it?

I have a feeling this 'current situation' may well be the last chance that the hawks in Israel get to kill some Palestinians because I think the U.S. state department wants to remove Palestinian linkage from the terrorist recruitment toolbox by imposing a settlement. And make no mistake, the U.S. has the power to do this with Israel's dependence on military aid.
posted by srboisvert at 7:20 AM on October 21, 2001

whoah, then that little arafat did take of the pistola. I "thought" i saw pictures of him with the piece. that could have been other events. HMMM. i belive Dans stuff almost to a fault. but i think he was told to leave it or refused to take it off. ok, the international hit-list Hamas may have been taken off. I heard this and could not belive the stupidity of that (must have come from State) so.. this may indicate that Sharon is gonna set the parameters rather the shrub. good. Should have killed Arafat long ago."And make no mistake, the U.S. has the power to do this with Israel's dependence on military aid." NO> NO< NO. this is wrong. the opposite is happening. Israel can not afford to hed every little "hey now" that the u.s. hands out. no. The u.s. will have its say, but i think this is an Israeli ultimatum like ive never seen.
posted by newnameintown at 9:07 AM on October 21, 2001

It is time for a Palestinian to separate the moderates from the extremists and I am confident that as long as the moderates are self policing Israel would cooperate with the real formation of a homeland. Until then Arafat's and the PA's support of and use of terrorism becomes more blatant to everyone given the recent events in the States. Israel has been dealing with September 11th-esque attacks on a weekly basis. I respect their military action and think it interesting to see a distinct change in political and military actions since Sept 11. Not just talk but an escalation in action as indicated via links in the initial post.

For those that see Israel as being unfair I propose this analogy: imagine if the Taleban insisted on its own State in the Union. And imagine an extremist member, Osama Ben Laden, used some terrorist action to make a point. How rediculous would it be that we even consider their request of a homeland without some formal, active separation from Ben Laden?
posted by greyscale at 11:22 AM on October 21, 2001

greyscale I think it's brave of you to 'respect a military action' that has been condemned by nearly every nation, international body, and surely every last human rights group on the planet. Yours is a bold stance that flies in the face of international law, ethics, and morals, ignores the evidence of unjust force (which happened before any of the terrorist attacks of the Intifada, over 30 Palestinians were killed before they fired a single shot on their side) and I commend you for it. Bravo.
posted by chaz at 12:35 PM on October 21, 2001

Yes, but what does Jorn Barger think?
posted by aaron at 2:28 PM on October 21, 2001

It now looks likely that the Labour party of Shimon Peres will withdraw its support from the "national unity" coalition unless the current incursions are halted. Who knows where that will lead?
posted by holgate at 3:29 PM on October 21, 2001

have any citations chaz? or do you always make grand generalizations of such simple matters as international law, ethics, and morals?
posted by greyscale at 4:24 PM on October 21, 2001

"Who knows where that will lead?" wont led anywhere. peres might get his walking papers if he opens his yap to much. fuck no, chaz is some punk with a list of idiots proclaiming no-no to bad uncle sam.
posted by newnameintown at 6:32 PM on October 21, 2001

interesting links chaz. wish you had posted them earlier since your point about unfair use of force is important to you. yet my belief that Israel, as a sovereign nation, demands a certain amount of respect regarless of their decision remains. and I don't see how your point ties in with any speculations about the future of the PA or any hope that their homeland will ever materialize. Israel's response seems to me entirely understandable. US citizens have bombed the Taleban and taken quite a few civilians as a result. Do I think it is "fair"? No way, but what relevance does my feeling about the fairness of our military action there have to the reasons or logic that has made it happen? Perhaps you can consider this question before you respond and include some reference to it when or if you do.
posted by greyscale at 9:10 PM on October 22, 2001

You raise a lot of fundamental issues that would make it difficult to discuss in this forum, if you are really interested, e-mail me. What I will say is two things:

a. there is a reason that human rights groups and international organizations work: there are legitimate disputes, legitimate actions, and legitimate responses-- but humans don't always follow these rules, and someone needs to point that out because it is wrong. And it's wrong for both sides, as violent answers to clearly political and legal situations only breed more violence.

b. nothing exists in a vaccuum. Of course if someone blows himself up in a crowd of people, the person(s) who sent them should be punished. But why are people resorting to that? Why is there such anger? Does it come from nothing? Are all humans essentially the same at their core?
posted by chaz at 9:27 PM on October 22, 2001

interesting development: Israel Rebuffs U.S. Request to End the West Bank Raids
posted by greyscale at 8:18 PM on October 23, 2001

« Older Coded message   |   David Talbot (Salon) rips Andrew Sullivan (WSJ... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments