Israeli Forces Enter Arafat's HQ

Boston

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34325-2002Mar29.html

Are they insane,

Gargoyle

This was bound to happen. 20 months ago, there was an offer on the table by which Arafat and the Palestinians were offered a continuous demilatarized state with east Jerusalem as its capital and right or return to controlled areas with over 90% of the occupied land. Arafat refused to even negotiate, choosing instead to turn directly to terror.

Hamas and Hizballah have basically declared that they would never support any peace agreement with Israel, stating they would only be satisfied with the complete elimination of Israel. As long as this is the case, and as long as Arafat chooses not to stop them or hasn't enough power to stop them, it is only logical to conclude that dealing with Arafat is futile and will never provide Israel with the security it desires.

After this last attack during Passover that killed 20+, Israel has finally come to realize the hopelessness of dealing with Arafat. It looks like Israel's decision is that they are prepared to take their chances with whoever or whatever fills the vacuum of Arafat.

So, no, they are not insane, they have simply made the most logical decision in their position.

Boston

what they atempted was totaly illegal, you can not murder the head of state, even if your at war with them.

i hear all this talk about protecting isreali people, yet i see very little protecting.

we must strike back or else they will attack us, get a grip they are atacking you because your striking back. the 20 dead isrealis are dead for no other reason then the isreali goverments refusal to allow arafat to go to a summit. was it really worth it.

and 20 more will die in revenge attacks after the latest isreali incursions

you talk about the peace deal, it would have made arafat a puppet leader, and given the palestinian people no control over their country

Typedef

Gargoyle.

You are completely wrong. The offer that was put before the Palestinians effectively annexed 20% of Palestine to Israel. Moreover if made 'Jew only' roads that traversed the proposed Palestinian state that would criss cross the state of Palestine. Plus it gave disproportionate water access rights to Jewish as opposed to Palestinians and the settlement ultimately was unacceptable and unpalleteable, but it was presented in an ultimatum way to the Palestinians.
It would seem you are attempting to imply that the Palestinians prefare the current state of affairs because for some reason they are intrinsically 'terrorist' which is simply not the case. The peace ultimatum was ultimately too little too late as was designed to entrench and annex yet more of Palestine to Israel to colonise.

Who honestly expected the Palestinians to annex 20% of Palestine to the Israeli's to colonise? Perhaps the people who decry Palestinians as terrorists.
You are attempting to imply that because the Palestinians did not accept the ultimatumm of Israel that would have annexed 20% of Palestine to Israel, that the Israeli's are justified in for exampe sending tanks into Yassir Arafat's Head Quaters without their usual morose 'provocation'. By such criteria you could argue that the IRA shoud bomb London because 150 years ago there was a famine in Ireland, move on and deal with the now, the incursion was unprovoked, the Israeli's are clearly at fault and should withdraw immediately from all terroritories to it's pre-1967 border as a bare criteria for the most pithe amounts of acceptability, to promote any other course of Israeli action is to ultimately support the 'still' illegal occupation of Palestine.

Typedef.

Gargoyle

Typedef, I'm not going to get into the intracacies of the Camp David agreement because its really beside the point. I don't care how terrible the offer was in your view, its not excuse for not taking the best opportunity in the history of the conflict to at least negotiate.

Originally posted by Typedef
Gargoyle.

It would seem you are attempting to imply that the Palestinians prefare the current state of affairs because for some reason they are intrinsically 'terrorist' which is simply not the case.

Typedef.

No, I am implying that as long as there are a substantial group of terrorists groups Arafat is either unwilling or unable to control, and those terrorists will not be satisfied unless Israel is eliminated, it is logical to conclude that dealing with Arafat is useless. I never said it was fair.

Boston

you condem arafat for not talkign to isreal in one sentance and dont praise isreal for not talking to arafat in another.

simple fact is, that no moderate will take over at arafat, in fact probably more hard line. it is not propaganda that is sending thousands of palestinians to there death, its isrealis

Typedef

Gargoyle: I never said it was fair.

So if it's not fair why defend it?

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Boston
you condem arafat for not talkign to isreal in one sentance and dont praise isreal for not talking to arafat in another.

I have not idea what your saying here, but I'm not condeming anyone. You asked, "Are the Israelis insane?" The answer is no.

If Arafat is unable to control the terrorists, is unfortunate. If Arafat is unwilling to control the terrorists, he's to blame. Either way, from the Israeli perspective, negotiating with him will not allow them to acheive any peace or security.

Originally posted by Boston

simple fact is, that no moderate will take over at arafat, in fact probably more hard line. it is not propaganda that is sending thousands of palestinians to there death, its isrealis

If the stated goal of Hamas and Hizballah is the elimination of Israel and you blame the Israelis for the bombings, you are essentially blaming the Israelis for existing, are you not?

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Typedef

So if it's not fair why defend it?

Ahh, I never said it was unfair either Its all a matter of perspective. If Arafat is unable to control the terrorists, then it is unfair. If he is encouraging it or even unwilling to try and prevent it, then is is fair. There is no way to really know. Either way though, from the Israeli perspective, he negotiations with him are not going to bear any fruit.

To answer your question though, the reason is because the initial question was "Are the Israeli's insane." The answer is, no; they are acting perfectly logically from their perspective.

Boston

what i said was, you condemed arafat for not talking to isreal 20motnhs ago. but now that isreal says theres no point in talking to arafat, you jump for joy.

you keep going back to hamas, most palestinians dont follow hamas, most(2 thirds) back arafat, so by ignoring arafat you ignor most of the palestinian people.

you are essentially blaming the Israelis for existing, are you not?

im sure i follow the poitn your tryign to make

Boston

Originally posted by Gargoyle


If he is encouraging it or even unwilling to try and prevent it, then is is fair.

they dont need arafat to encourage them, isreali invading palestinian cities is enough encouragement for most people.

The Cigarette Smoking Man

BREAKING NEWS from CNN.com Europe:

- Israelis and Palestinians involved in fierce room-to-room battle to control Yasser Arafat's HQ, Palestinians say.

http://europe.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/29/mideast/index.html

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Boston


they dont need arafat to encourage them, isreali invading palestinian cities is enough encouragement for most people.

Hamas and Hizballah's statements indicate that it matters not whether Israel is invading Palestinian cities or not. Their stated goal is the destruction of Israel.

Knowing this, from the Israeli perspective, it is better for to push out and create a buffer zone rather than pull back and allow attacks to be accompished more easily. Hamas and Hizbollah have with their statements created a situation where there is no reason for the Israelis to believe that pulling back will bring an end to violence.

Boston

if there was actual peace between isreal and palestine, one the majoriy of both sides could live with, without either having na advantage over the other, then hamas would be history.

hamas is only strongest when isreal is at its msot aggressive, they have seen a huge surge in support in recent months

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Boston
if there was actual peace between isreal and palestine, one the majoriy of both sides could live with, without either having na advantage over the other, then hamas would be history.

hamas is only strongest when isreal is at its msot aggressive, they have seen a huge surge in support in recent months

Based on their own statements, there is no reason to believe this, Boston. And, it only takes one terrorist to take out 20 or 30 people. I'm simply trying to illustrate that from the Israeli perspective, this move makes perfect sense.

Additionally, I have serious doubts as to whether there can ever actually be your precondition, real peace between Israel and Palestine. There's too much history, too much hatred, too much zealotry on both sides. They've come to a point where from each's perspective, the most logical move is to kill each other. That's where the equilibrium stands.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what comes of this. It is definitely a change in the status quo and it will either make things better or worse. Lets all hope for better. I'm off. Happy Easter weekend.

Boston

you dont understand how these things work, without a support base of ordinary people, safe houses and the like, no resistance organization can operate. just look at th ira

Boston

This is insane, thousands have marched in gaza, "rivers of bllod will flow" in isreal, should arafat be harmed, if they kill him, theres no going back

DadaKopf

Actually, could anyone tell me this:

Is it against international law for any state to attack, invade or occupy another's consulate, even following a militarily aggressive act by that state?

It's just I remember all that humming and hawing with Milosevic's arrest.

Boston

yes it is, totaly.

i mean how do they expect to get away with it.

Clintons Cat

They've come to a point where from each's perspective, the most logical move is to kill each other. That's where the equilibrium stands

e·qui·lib·ri·um Pronunciation Key (kw-lbr-m, kw-)
n. pl. e·qui·lib·ri·ums or e·qui·lib·ri·a (-r-)
A condition in which all acting influences are canceled by others, resulting in a stable, balanced, or unchanging system.

It is not an equilibrium.One side is armed with attack helicoptors,jets,tanks, and supplied with arms (courtesy of the us) to the tune of three billion dollers per annum,and the other is at the risk of over romanticising the palestinians armed with klashnikovs,explosives and stone throwers.
Every year that passes the israraeli army increases in size,power and technical sophistication,so much so that the whole economy would probally collapse if america withdrew its support.
The isrealis are not faced with the traditional problems of fighting a guerilla war,ie ecconomic attrition quite simply whilst america replenishes their arms the israelis have no need to negotiate with the palestinians or the arab world at large.
Sharon believes quite rightly he can win a war against the palestinians and unfortunately most israeli public opinion backs him.

pugwall

I think they will get away with it (unfortunately!), and they do too. America will continue to back them publicly although they will put alot of pressure on them privately to make some move towards a peace deal. Israel will argue that they have as much as a right to go after Yasser (and maybe kill him) as the US do in going after Mulla Omar. I have to agree with Typedef on this one. I am totally opposed to Israels illigal position.

Boston

yea but which war, this and the next one and the next one and the next one, he will never really beat them

Clintons Cat

yea but which war, this and the next one and the next one and the next one, he will never really beat them

i beleive the assasinated israeli tourism minister had a description of the palestinians "lice" "in need of eradicating"
now where have i heard that phrase before?
some time around the Final solution maybe?
Also look up the link to the various quotes of sharon in the previous israeli thread.

The Cigarette Smoking Man

I was listening to Arafat talking to Christiane Amanpour on CNN earlier and he sounded like a nervous man, then towards the end of the Interview he got very agitated and hung up. There's a transcript here:

http://europe.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/03/29/arafat.cnna/index.html

ARAFAT: You have to be accurate when you are speaking with General Yasser Arafat. Be quiet! You are covering, with such questions, the terrorist activities of the Israeli occupation and the Israeli crimes. Be fair. Why do you make these certain mistakes?

Thank you. Bye, bye.

Terran

That's exactly what he said. I'm curious as to what is going to be Israels next move.

Victor

Gargoyle why do you keep refering to Hizbollah, an organisation primarily operational in Lebanon? And who are de facto at peace with Israel (Sheeba Farms aside).

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Is it against international law for any state to attack, invade or occupy another's consulate

I'm not sure what status the compound holds. I'm quite sure the Allies occupied the German and Japanese seats of government after the war. However if it has the status of a consulate, it is protected by the Vienna Convention. It is up to all parties involved to protect and vindicate the protection of consulates.

Originally posted by DadaKopf
even following a militarily aggressive act by that state?.

Is Palestine a state? Or is it a 'pre-state'? Does the Camp David agreement and other agreements de facto make it a state? And have the armed forces of Palestine engaged in "militarily aggressive act" (invasion, attack)

Originally posted by DadaKopf
It's just I remember all that humming and hawing with Milosevic's arrest.

It was generally considered better for the Yugoslav government to arrest Milosevic. It proved their willingness to move on from previous mistakes and gave the arrest greater ligitimacy in the eyes of the Yugoslav and international public.

Clintons Cat

Yesha Residents: "We Should Conquer, The Arabs Can Leave"
Kedumim Mayor Daniella Weiss dismissed today's military offensive as "insignificant," because it is "designed to prepare the way for dialogue with the Palestinian murderers immediately after the end of the battles." The enemy must be destroyed, she said, "and we must not ever proposed additional concessions; the very mention of these is what has brought upon us these terrible tragedies." Minister Danny Naveh partially confirmed Weiss' fears by saying that after the army takes control of the terrorist centers, it must withdraw and re-deploy on a new border "according to Israel's security needs."

On the political left, Minister Raanan Cohen (Labor) said that suicide terrorists' families must be killed. Other voices on the left haven't changed, though. The government decision for the military offensive was accepted unanimously - except for Shimon Peres, who abstained. Former Minister Yuli Tamir said today that the "settlers" must not drag Israel back into the "kasba (market) of Shechem."

Rabbi Menachem Felix, a next-door neighbor of the Gavish family in Elon Moreh and who lost his daughter Ofrah in a terrorist shooting several years ago, said, "If you're asking whether I want to return to Shechem, I say yes, I want to return and conquer it. Our situation when we were in control of these areas was immeasurably better than it is now. There will be no peace until we know that we are returning to our Land of Israel to stay... After we return to these area, the Arabs can leave and go wherever; we will stay."

Hundreds of people demonstrated outside the Prime Minister's office in Jerusalem last night, chanting, "Peres to jail! Death to terrorists!" and the like. Hevron spokesman Noam Arnon, speaking with a megaphone, yelled to the government ministers convened not far away, "We demand that you take action to restore security! This government is committing suicide and bringing the nation to do the same!" The protesters attempted to enter the government complex, and some were knocked down by police.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=20909


ciggie >Very intresting article thanks


News Round Up
Palestinian
Palestine Times http://www.ptimes.com/


Israeli
arutz sheva http://www.israelnationalnews.com/
jeruselem post http://www.jpost.com/
globes (financial) http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/
ha'aretz http://www.haaretzdaily.com/



If anyone has some good links to the history of the Settlers Associations within the occupied territories i would appriciate them.

Boston

Yesha Residents: "We Should Conquer, The Arabs Can Leave"
Kedumim Mayor Daniella Weiss dismissed today's military offensive as "insignificant," because it is "designed to prepare the way for dialogue with the Palestinian murderers immediately after the end of the battles." The enemy must be destroyed, she said, "and we must not ever proposed additional concessions; the very mention of these is what has brought upon us these terrible tragedies." Minister Danny Naveh partially confirmed Weiss' fears by saying that after the army takes control of the terrorist centers, it must withdraw and re-deploy on a new border "according to Israel's security needs."

On the political left, Minister Raanan Cohen (Labor) said that suicide terrorists' families must be killed. Other voices on the left haven't changed, though. The government decision for the military offensive was accepted unanimously - except for Shimon Peres, who abstained. Former Minister Yuli Tamir said today that the "settlers" must not drag Israel back into the "kasba (market) of Shechem."

Rabbi Menachem Felix, a next-door neighbor of the Gavish family in Elon Moreh and who lost his daughter Ofrah in a terrorist shooting several years ago, said, "If you're asking whether I want to return to Shechem, I say yes, I want to return and conquer it. Our situation when we were in control of these areas was immeasurably better than it is now. There will be no peace until we know that we are returning to our Land of Israel to stay... After we return to these area, the Arabs can leave and go wherever; we will stay."

Hundreds of people demonstrated outside the Prime Minister's office in Jerusalem last night, chanting, "Peres to jail! Death to terrorists!" and the like. Hevron spokesman Noam Arnon, speaking with a megaphone, yelled to the government ministers convened not far away, "We demand that you take action to restore security! This government is committing suicide and bringing the nation to do the same!" The protesters attempted to enter the government complex, and some were knocked down by police.

if i came out with this sort of thing, id probably be condemned a racist nazi scum bag, and mostlikely arrested if i said it in public.

these are the people so many try to defend, were is sands, i want to hear his opinion on the mass murder of a sucicide bombers family

Typedef

and we must not ever proposed additional concessions; the very mention of these is what has brought upon us these terrible tragedies.

If you're gonna delude yourself why not go the whole hog eh, in for a penny in for a pound after all.

Whatever you do don't mention peace and compromise, that is a surefire way to war. Ok well thanks for the productive input.

Sand

these are the people so many try to defend, were is sands, i want to hear his opinion on the mass murder of a sucicide bombers family

Well to be honest Im sick to christ of the same old ****e that the pro - palestine lobby come out with while tripping over their words when it comes to terrorism (Yeah, shock-horror, that includes the "mass murder" of Israeli families by Palestinian sucide bombers) . Yeah its true, I couldnt give a feck what you think tbh - be offended if you want, like I said I couldnt give a feck.

Lets just clarify one more time. Quote this (when you reply, as you will) so I know you read it, try and repeat it in your own words so I know you finally comprehended it. Im not pro- Israeli. Im anti-terrorist. Read that a few times. I dont defend the Israelis, I defend their right to kill terrorists. Read that a few times. Ive already defined my understanding (and most peoples understanding) of terrorism. If youve forgotten, search for a Israel thread. Assuming this has sunk through finally, move on to the next paragraph. Otherwise re-read this paragraph until it does sink through.

Assuming you understand this (finally) lets examine the first question that hit me the second I read the original post where that (the killing of terrrorists familys) was quoted, before I even read your post.

On the political left, Minister Raanan Cohen (Labor) said that suicide terrorists' families must be killed.

Thats the quote your referring to? Actually its not a quote as such. Its a quote of the reporters interpretation of what Cohen said. Dig up the original quote and Ill comment on it.

Actually, here, Ill help you. Read the Israeli articles in Newsweek, theres a quote where an Israeli says they should drop a nuke on the Gaza strip. Do you disagree with this? Ill hazard a guess and say yes. Do I disagree with this? Yeah, for the same reasoning I disagree with terrorism.

P.S. - Boston if you want to know my opinion on something relating to the Israeli-Palestinain conflict you can find it out very simply. Ask yourself is it terrorism or a milatary action (As *I* define it - I know your definitions are extremely loose much like those of the Palestinians)? If its terrorism I oppose it. If its a milatary action my response is generally to shrug - **** happens. This will save us both time.

king of fifa

occupied territories? sounds like liebemstraum to me