Israeli Forces Enter Arafat's HQ

bonkey

Originally posted by Sharkey
Let me put it this way. Certainly, at the edges, the lines blur. Let's just say that instances of blowing up rooms filled with civilians and lots of children (NONE of which are militarily importance) are CLEARLY terrorist acts, while the accidental killing of civilians during exercises designed to remove such terrorist or other military targets is not.

Well - lets not say that, because there is a strong case to be made in that the Israeli's incursions are not simply targetting terrorists.

As for the targetting of military targets - its a bit facetious for Israel to claim that the Palestinians should be stamping out terrorism and must do so before Israel will deal with them, while at the same time, systematically destroying any mechanism which the Palestinians may have to do so.

The Palestinians NEVER had a state of their own.

No - but they were given one at the same time as the Israelis were.

No. The PA isn't interested in peace. Neither is Syria, Iran and most other Arab nations. They are interested in the destruction of Israel.

Is there a shred of contemporary evidence to support this?

If you wish to go back to historical cases, please remember that this period in time also serves to "prove" that Sharon was a massively blood-thirsty killer who was only interested in subjugating the Palestinians, as numerous interviews with him from the time would indicate. These have been posted here previously by others, so I'm not going and digging them out as proof.

So - if historically the arab nations were opposed to the Jews in Israel, and we use that to say that they still hate them and want them destroyed, we must also concede that Ariel Sharon is a bloodthirsty killer who wants to see nothing more than the destruction of the Palestinian nation.

On the other hand, if you have some shred of modern proof, please bring it forward. Also explain why the world at large, except for the Israelis, are willing to accept the goodwill of the arab nations as evidenced by their recent peace proposal

I would also question the validity of this threat, given that we are talking about Israel, backed by the US military being the target. The Israelis have a non-too-shabby army themselves - add the US forces, and you seriously believe that anyone is going to do more than make angry speeches?

That Israel has been targetted by terrorists is undeniable, and unjustifiable. However, this can never excuse their own actions which have been far less than exemplary.

jc

Sharkey

Originally posted by bonkey


Well - lets not say that, because there is a strong case to be made in that the Israeli's incursions are not simply targetting terrorists. ...

Please enumerate those exceptions

As for the targetting of military targets - its a bit facetious for Israel to claim that the Palestinians should be stamping out terrorism and must do so before Israel will deal with them, while at the same time, systematically destroying any mechanism which the Palestinians may have to do so.

Well, considering that Arafat is ordering much of the terrorism -- or Hammas -- or Islamic Jihad, I would respectfully disagree. These acts are not grass-roots actions, but planned and sponsored by the PA and other Arab leaders.

No - but they [the Palestineans] were given one [a state] at the same time as the Israelis were.

GREAT POINT. You raise a great point. However, it was the ARABS, not the Jews, that axed the Palestinean state. The Jews, however, mamaged to survive the Arab resistance. So why aren't you out blaming the Arabs?

No. The PA isn't interested in peace. Neither is Syria, Iran and most other Arab nations. They are interested in the destruction of Israel.
Is there a shred of contemporary evidence to support this?
[/B]

Actually, there's tonnes of evidence, including evidence showing that Arafat had ordered various terrorist acts, the PA/Iran's breaking of the Olso accords on weapons, Arfat proclaiming in Arabic that his interest still lie in Israel's destruction, various accusation of Blood-libel (Jews kill Arab teens to make passover pastries) spread by Arab leaders and press, propaganda in arab and palestinean textbooks.........

bonkey

Originally posted by Sharkey

Well, considering that Arafat is ordering much of the terrorism -- or Hammas -- or Islamic Jihad, I would respectfully disagree. These acts are not grass-roots actions, but planned and sponsored by the PA and other Arab leaders.

I'll come back to this.....

GREAT POINT. You raise a great point. However, it was the ARABS, not the Jews, that axed the Palestinean state. The Jews, however, mamaged to survive the Arab resistance. So why aren't you out blaming the Arabs?

Actually - the arabs wouldnt accept any of the terms - neither Israel nor Palestine. If their objection to Palestine is in any way valid, then so is their objection to Israel.

On the other hand, if Israel has a right to exist despite Arab protestation, so does Palestine.

You're right - it is a GREAT POINT.

Actually, there's tonnes of evidence, including evidence showing that Arafat had ordered various terrorist acts, the PA/Iran's breaking of the Olso accords on weapons, Arfat proclaiming in Arabic that his interest still lie in Israel's destruction, various accusation of Blood-libel (Jews kill Arab teens to make passover pastries) spread by Arab leaders and press, propaganda in arab and palestinean textbooks.........

Which brings us back to your "Arafat is ordering much of the terrorism" claim again.

Here's a very simple question. If Israel can prove he is behind it, why dont they forcefully remove him from his refuge, and drag his sorry ass in front of an international war crimes tribunal and prove it?

It would discredit Arafat in the international worlds eyes, and also show that Israel are willing to play by the rules. It would give htem the moral high ground and international support in every conceivable way.

Possibly because - wait for it - they cant prove it.

Come on - they have him cornered and pretty much incapacitated. Since that moment, the violence has taken a massive increase. If they know he is the orchestrator of much this violence as you claim, then why not prevent him for orcestrating further. Place him under arrest - bring him to trial.

If the Israelis are not willing to do this, then they cannot justify keeping Arafat penned as they do at the moment.

jc

Sand

Those in favor of the Irish Republic were branded 'murderers', 'terrorists', 'thugs' and the like by the British administration- today many of the same are heroes and revered fathers of the nation. So, Sharkey and Sand in particular- where does terrorist end and freedom fighter begin? Numerous resistance groups picked civilian targets during the independence struggles in many a nation- from diplomats to postal workers just doing their job.

You see, I dont deal in "branding". Either they were freedom fighters/guerillas/paramilataries or they were terrorists. Branding only comes in the history books.

Lets take Palestine/Israel as an example - If the palestinians target the IDF then theyre freedom fighters, if they target the Israeli security forces (Police/Private) in the Occupied terretories then theyre freedom fighters, If they target the political leadership/ bureacrats then theyre freedom fighters (My opinion being if the IDF infantryman can die for his governments policies then so can the policy maker). All the above are milatary targets, with a objective value. They are the targets of freedom fighters.

Now lets look at the other side. If the palestinians deliberately plan and carry out an attack on civillians for the purpose of killing as many of them as possible then it is terrorism. No milatary objective is accomplished. This is terrorism.

If you act like a freedom fighter then Ive got no real problem with you, if you act like a terrorist- well I despise terrorists.

Of course very little is *that* black and white. Sometimes civillians die during a milatary attack. Should a palestinian suicide bomber run up to a Israeli checkpoint and blow himself up, wiping out that checkpoint and its soldiers - and as an unintended "side effect" kills several civillians also at the checkpoint then fair enough. The suicide bombers objective was a checkpoint and the soldiers - a milatary objective. The civillians were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, much like the civillians whove died in every war.

Time to put on my flame repellant survival gear as we go to the next point. Are the Israelis terrorists? My opinion is that while the Israelis are extremely reckless in their milatary operations against Palestinian forces (terrorist AND militia), recklessness is not terrorism. The Israelis do exhibit incredible restraint, relative to the provocation of seeing *things* which were once women and children being taken out form the ruins of coffee shops while their enemies celebrate and praise these acts. One can only imagine the anger that causes. And yet the Israelis have refrained from answering in kind by dropping naplam on Rammallahs civillians. They do apologise when their milatary forces mistakenly kill the wrong person. They do seem to go after targets of milatary value even if theyre not as careful as the Americans are in their operations.

Theyre not nice people and have far more fanatics than Id wish upon my worse enemy, they are extremely suspicious to the point of shooting first and asking questions later, and Sharon is repellant. Their policies of expanding settlements and their habit of arrogant provocation in even the smallest way possible ( Newsweek carried pictures of Israelis doing house searches in the West Bank - they marked each cleared house with a Star of David of all things) is also foolish and pointless. Theyre balanced people, having a chip on both shoulders but given the bigoted crap that circulates though the Arab media regarding them being cannibals - well...

GerK

Originally posted by Sand


Lets take Palestine/Israel as an example - If the palestinians target the IDF then theyre freedom fighters, if they target the Israeli security forces (Police/Private) in the Occupied terretories then theyre freedom fighters, If they target the political leadership/ bureacrats then theyre freedom fighters (My opinion being if the IDF infantryman can die for his governments policies then so can the policy maker). All the above are milatary targets, with a objective value. They are the targets of freedom fighters.

My opinion is that while the Israelis are extremely reckless in their milatary operations against Palestinian forces (terrorist AND militia), recklessness is not terrorism. The Israelis do exhibit incredible restraint, relative to the provocation of seeing *things* which were once women and children being taken out form the ruins of coffee shops while their enemies celebrate and praise these acts. One can only imagine the anger that causes. And yet the Israelis have refrained from answering in kind by dropping naplam on Rammallahs civillians.

"[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State or would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurastiction of the United States and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assination or kidnapping."

This is the US definition of terrorism. Taken from the 1984 US Code Congressional and Administrative News.


I would argue that by this definition (which I think is a fair one) that BOTH sides are guilty of terrorism, that is IF you accept that the PA has been proven complicit in the attacks on Isreali soil.

It is also interesting to note that the US itself rarely, if ever, manages abide by this definition when engaging in its foreign relations.

I feel both sides are guilty of terrorism and that they will continue to be until they begin abiding by International Law eg. GA Resolution 194 which affirms Palestinian rights to return to their homes (Isreali's have increasingly been in violation of this since 1948). The PA must renounce terrorism and make concrete efforts to extinguish the support and withdraw the liberty of those who would slaughter innocents to sate their hatred.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
My opinion is that while the Israelis are extremely reckless in their milatary operations against Palestinian forces (terrorist AND militia), recklessness is not terrorism.

I know what you're driving at, but for me, reckless is not the right term.

I get the impression that the Israeli military policy has aims other than just the suppression of terrorism. Maybe thats just paranoid cynicism on my part (although it would be anti-Semitism or something to a rabid Issraeli supporter I'm sure), but I think that there are very few rational explanations for the Israeli's current actions which do not involve ulterior motives.

I dont think the Israeli's are engaged in terrorist activities. However, I think that they are being far more than just "reckless".

jc

Von

Originally posted by GerK
The PA must renounce terrorism and make concrete efforts to extinguish the support and withdraw the liberty of those who would slaughter innocents to sate their hatred.

Nah, the PA is finished. Sharon wants total control of the occupied territories and he's going to get it since he's got full US support. But the presence of the international peace activists in the compound must present some difficulty. If they weren't there, the place would probably be rubble by now.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sharkey


I don't know about ALL the territories, but most of them seemed to win their independence through military force

Incorrect I'm afraid- in fact almost none of the occupied territories achieved independence by force of arms. The majority were negotiated settlements, in most cases the British government was the party willing to relinquish control- in fact the only nation that won its independence as a direct result of an armed uprising that I can think of is the Republic of Ireland. The other territory Britain was reluctant to leave hold of was India- whose independence movement was led, nay dominated by civil disobedience and peaceful protest. Ghandi proved to us that liberty and security can be preserved through nonviolent means, that's something we can all learn from. In fact if you look at 90% of decolonization, it took place without an armed struggle. Indonesia, Vietnam, and one or two others did fight for independence, but both armed struggles had only been taken up when all other means had expired.

However, Israel is not merely fighting to maintain an empire. Israel fights to maintain its very existence while surrounded by hostile entities. Therein lies a HUGH difference that makes your comparison to the empire builders of old less valid.

Surrounded by hostile entities? I think that's the funniest thing I've heard all week...but I'll come back to that.

Let me put it this way. Certainly, at the edges, the lines blur. Let's just say that instances of blowing up rooms filled with civilians and lots of children (NONE of which are militarily importance) are CLEARLY terrorist acts, while the accidental killing of civilians during exercises designed to remove such terrorist or other military targets is not.

Evicting people from their homes without cause, searching without need nor recourse to a warrant, torturing suspected terrorists and troublemakers to me constitutes oppression at the very least, if not terrorism. The deliberate targeting and persecution of civilians is the goal of a terror campaign, it would seem Sharon couldn't have written a better script for such a campaign. But then he wouldn't need to, given his involvement at Sabra and Chatila.

Technically, an act of defense is a violent action.

Being somewhat familiar with this subject (my father was a criminal defense attorney for many years, and is now a serving judge), I can say you're making a specious argument there. Certainly, self-defense is justified, but penal codes across the globe include the phrase "necessary and justifiable force". Ergo, if you feel that your very existence is in mortal danger from an assailant, then killing in self-defense is acceptable as a last resort. However, if your person is not in danger and you kill and claim self-defense, you'll more than likely be put away. Consider the recent legal precedent regarding the farmer Tony Martin- having shot a trespasser/thief/intruder into his home, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to 20 years.

Necessary and justifiable force also applies in the manner that enforcement agencies around the world ply their trade. If someone threatens an armed officer with a lethal weapon, then an officer is entitled to act in self-defense. Using deadly force as the Israelis have done against young boys armed with stones is not necessary nor justifiable, it's sheer, bloody, murder. The kid with a stone isn't threatening your life if he pings you on your kevlar helmet with it, annoying to be sure, but does he deserve to die for it?

The Ottoman Empire doesn't exist? Say it ain't so!<snip>

Still a fallacial argument- the nations whose land was stolen still exist, and as I pointed out in an earlier post, 2 out of 3 of them are on extremely friendly terms with Israel. Visionaries like Anwar Sadat, Yitszak Rabin and Hussein of Jordan, sadly no longer with us, made this possible. The idea that poor little Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbors/enemies is such a dated one, I can't even begin to explain it. Out of interest, of those three visionaries, only one died of natural causes, Sadat was shot by an Arab extremist(early 80s), and Rabin by a Zionist fanatic(recently). It would seem your argument is that the efforts these martyrs made to bring their nations closer together should not move further forward, and that they died in vain. Well I hope to God you're wrong.

No. The PA isn't interested in peace. Neither is Syria, Iran and most other Arab nations. They are interested in the destruction of Israel.

Just as a matter of interest, Iran isn't an Arab nation. Their hatred for Israel mainly stems from Israel's relations with the US, and even that hatred has now cooled, with a new generation swiftly coming to realize the state of world affairs. Even Syria is moving closer to amiable terms with Israel, the two nations opened full diplomatic channels early last year, now EVERY state bordering Israel recognizes it as a nation, and therefore under UN charter its right to exist. Now how the heck, in your estimation does that constitute hostile neighbors surrounding Israel, bent on destroying it? Not all the Arab armies in the world could touch Israel now, even if they wanted to, which they most certainly don't. It's simply not in their best interests to fight the palestinian's battles, which is a shame in one sense- the Palestinian people could really do with a friend in the international community right now, at least a friend willing to do more than step up to a speaking lectern.

Well, I have past history to back my assertions/suspicions -- a well defined track record of Arabs/Palestinians -- plus statements made by Arab and Palestinian leaders to back my claims

What bonkey said- Israel has its own fair share of atrocities to account for. The 1961 Yel-ar-Khoun massacre, over 800 Palestinian families gunned down by Israeli soldiers, over 4 million Palestinians forcibly moved off their land, hundreds more shot as suspected spies, terrorists, Fedayeen, traitors, you name it. All executed by military court-martial, no formal civilian trial, several held for torture, some only released 4 years ago, held for 3 decades without trial. If you're comfortable living in the past, then there are a few hard historical tidbits to chew on. However, speaking for the present, it's fair to say that the state of Israel is a lot closer to its historical profile than Arab states are to their's today. Note, most of the historical aggression you refer to doesn't involve the Palestinians in any way, merely outraged neighbors, who today see Israel as a partner in the Middle East, not an enemy to be destroyed.

But Palestinian, Syrian, Iranian and Saudi violence and/or sponsored violence are in the here and now.

As for Palestianian sponsorship of violence by the PA I have yet to see a shred of proof. As jc says, if the state of Israel can't prove it with the resource capability they have (Mossad, the IDF, the ARV), then it probably isn't true. Well, everyone knows at least this much criminal jurisprudence - you are innocent until proved guilty, and you cannot be tried without enough evidence to mount a prima facie case. Iran do sponsor violence, but not inside Israel (prove me wrong if you can), neither do Saudi Arabia(again, if you could provide convincing proof I will withdraw these remarks). The case for surrounding nations sponsoring violence is sketchy at best, but the case for Israel sponsoring violence within its own borders under the pretence of maintaining security is there to be answered. Every time deadly force is used unecessarily, it sparks hatred in Palestinian communities, can't blame them for that. If the British police opened fire with M16s and AUGs on a May-day protest mob, I think the implications for the officers involved would be severe to say the least. Too bad Israel can't offer the same standards of decency and moral courage.

Look, you seem to be a fine person overall,
<snip>

Why thank you You really should have left it there though :-/

but your entire position is not supported by history

You present no rationale to support this outlandish remark- history shows that negotiation, tolerance and mediation solves violent standoffs, and that a hardline stance simply leads to a cycle of violence. History also shows repeatedly, that peoples' right to express their self-determination cannot be stamped out by even overwhelming force, and that injustice will be punished by blood if not by a court of law. I think history is rather on my side with the position I've taken, the examples/precedents laid out in my posts showed this reasonably enough I thought. Oh well.

and some of you positions are at odds with thousands of years of predominant philosophical thought

If you're referring to philosopha several thousand years old, then I'm happy to be at odds with almost all of them, and won't lose any sleep over it. Philosophies that include excusing someone's murder (just so long as they were a heathen, obviously), selling your kids into slavery(as long as it pays the bills), an eye for an eye(leaves the world blind as the Mahatma once said), and other such pearls of wisdom are all well and good, but they tend to leave a rather sour taste in my mouth at times, so I think I'll pass, thanks. I'll stick with the philosophies of logic, rights of man, libertias indominitus and the ethos of human understanding. Ancient intolerant and bigoted philosophies (of which there are many) interest me not a whit.

Occy

dathi1

The Ottoman Empire doesn't exist? Say it ain't so! Duh! My point was to show just how silly the original premise was. Practically every square inch of the planet is conquered land, re-conquered land, re-re-conquered land and so on. The Palestinians NEVER had a state of their own. The Arabs NEVER controlled Israel and the occupied territories were controlled by countries carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the Brits.

Technically speaking neither did we (have a state) until 1923. But it is a fact that only 4% of the population of the Land Of Palestine was Jewish in 1923 the rest Arabs (Hashimites ect). Then the holocaust came and the victims took it out on the Arabs. Edward Said and family literally thrown out of their homes by Jewish mobs in Haifa 1947. Then came the mighty Jewish American Media Spin monopoly which is were we are today.

Victor

Originally posted by Sharkey
I assume this was in response to my post. First, your characterization of killing Arafat as "murder" is absurd given that Arafat has directed much of the terrorist activity against Israel. Arafat is a legitimate military target as much as anyone pointing a gun.

I was quoting your post. Murder is murder is murder. I was taking your context (in turn taken from elsewhere), not creating my own. "Killing" Arafat may be understandable or excused in particular circumstances, but murdering him cannot.

[edited - Gandalf]

Sand

This is the US definition of terrorism. Taken from the 1984 US Code Congressional and Administrative News.

Reading that it occured to me you can interpret it to condemn all acts of war as terrorism. You can also interpret it in such a fashion that Israel would not be considered a terrorist, which is apparently the position of the US. That definition is quite a loose one which had to be open to a lot of interpretation so it could get by a comittee. Personally Im not a fan of loose definitions, not putting it down but you see what I mean. Terrorism as a concept has been downgraded to become some mud to throw on your opponent, much like being called nazi . Loose definitions dont help.

I get the impression that the Israeli military policy has aims other than just the suppression of terrorism. Maybe thats just paranoid cynicism on my part (although it would be anti-Semitism or something to a rabid Issraeli supporter I'm sure), but I think that there are very few rational explanations for the Israeli's current actions which do not involve ulterior motives.

Given the comments attributable to Sharon when he was a General its not unthinkable that many in the IDF command structure share a similar "attitude", even if watered down. This would account for a large degree of their "recklessness" or whatever you might call it. Certainly many members of the Israeli right are not so much interested in preventing terrorist attacks on Israel as simply crushing the Palestinians and driving them out of Israel (which includes the occupied territories by their definition) altogether. Not impossible that similar views are held within the IDF to the point where they feel the PA areas should simply be annexed and theyre eager to prove they can at any opportunity.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus


As for Palestianian sponsorship of violence by the PA I have yet to see a shred of proof. <snip>

Occy

Bob, here are some links you may be interested in.

Captain says PLO ordered weapons

http://www.nctimes.com/news/2002/20020126/64232.html

http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/11/pa1130.htm

http://www.etaiwannews.com/Asia/2002/01/26/1012014776.htm

Here are some snippets from these links (which weren't very tough to find)

The (Human Rights Watch) report describes a "revolving door policy" of arresting alleged members of militant groups such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad, often under pressure from Israel or the international community, holding them without charge or trial, and then releasing them.

In a fiery speech in Ramallah today, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat called for more martyrdom, reportedly saying: "I am willing to sacrifice 70 to die to kill one Israeli." .... Arafat's fiery rhetoric in Arabic stands in stark contrast to his more conciliatory statements in English in which he has agreed to stop attacks on Israelis.

President George W. Bush sent proof to three key Arab leaders that the Palestinian Authority was engaged in a weapons smuggling plot and asked them to put pressure on Yasser Arafat to make arrests, according to senior administration officials.

Now Bob, there are more of these, they weren't tough to find, and you are not a stupid person. Your denial of seeing any evidence causes me to believe you have not wanted to see it, or at the very least you simply haven't bothered to look.

As an open question to all those who frequent these boards I ask: Do you honestly believe that Arafat wants to live in peace side by side with Israel? I, personally, do not.

In fairness, nor do I believe Sharon wants to live side by side with Palestinians. I am, however, sick of so many holding up Arafat as some kind of revolutionary hero when he is doing and has done more than his fair share to delay the slim possibility that there may ever be real and lasting peace in the Middle East.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

I find no corroborative evidence in any of those links that substantiates the claim that the PA leadership directly sponsors terrorism. Evidence of this more than reasonable doubt is found readily enough in the links you supplied:

But Mr Akawi doubted whether Mr Arafat or senior members of the Palestinian political leadership knew about the operation.

Now I remember the arms smuggling incident, it was fairly recent, well-televised and reported upon in main news programmes everywhere. Nowhere in any of the reports do I recall, hand on heart, that there was proof that the PA was directly involved. In fact I remember Jon Simpson (a highly respected Beeb reporter, internationally renowned for his balanced views) interviewing many of those concerned, who admitted to him on camera, that several of the harder elements in the enforcement arm of Arafat's PA were working hard to undermine him and scupper peace efforts. Jon Simpson's conclusion was that the arms were in fact, most likely destined for Palestinian police. His reasoning was simple, yet convincing. Firstly, there were mainly small arms and assault rifles (something any military police force would equip themselves with), NOT high-grade explosives(the type used by suicide bombers) or infantry battalion weaponry normally associated with terrorist shipments. Secondly, given that an official of the PA (with or without Arafat's knowledge) ordered the shipment, I find it hard to believe that those arms would be destined for terrorists given the childishly simple paper trail that was in place for officials to follow. You point out that I'm not stupid...well neither are the PA. An official of their's wouldn't order arms through such a channel unless those arms were for bona fide purposes.

The article also states that the arms were a gift from the Islamic state of Iran to the PA...well, given that the US gifts Israel with 3 billion dollars a year of annual aid (most of which goes into defense spending), I think it's fair enough if Iran wants to donate arms to help the Palestinians police terror.

The second link you posted is merely filled with rhetoric from our incumbent President, incumbent in this instance because he clearly hasn't examined the facts, and is taking sides based on a traditional alliance which in my view has no merits with Sharon at the helm. Both he and Colin Powell assume that Arafat knew about the shipment, when the captain of the ship himself doesn't think so- and even if he knew(which by all accounts seems unlikely), there is nothing beyond suspicion to say that those arms would have gone to anyone but Palestinian enforcement offcers.

The third link you posted does however have a lot of merit in its arguments, thanks for that- I will readily concede that a proper system of detention, trials, procedure of judicial review and appeals is imperative for the PA to be taken seriously. The other side of the coin is that the Israelis must detain, charge and try IDF and other enforcement officers for excessive use of force when it is warranted. There hasn't been a single court-martial regarding excessive use of deadly force by the IDF in over 2 years. Neither had there ever been a serious policy review of torture conducted in Israel- I'm sure if you searched Human Rights News a bit, you would find numerous testimonials of those who have been to the interrment camps in Israel, where suspects are indefinately held for questioning without judicial review...many tortured mercilessly. I find that attitude abhorrent and hypocritical given Israel's constact yammering at Arafat to put his own house in order. Granted, Arafat needs to please the harder line elements among his own people, but he and the PA have never gone further than rhetoric in supporting terrorism, the state of Israel openly conducts it in its approach, under the false pretense of maintaining security. False pretense, because the the approach has done anything but maintain said security, it has inflamed the situation out of control.

The fourth link is merely more of #2- nothing seems to prove that Arafat was directly involved. He has denied knowledge or involvement, and arrested 3 of his own police chiefs for violating the Oslo agreement. Interesting that the Israelis haven't punished their own so far for violation of these same agreements. Settlers still building on Palestinian land, torture still going on unchecked, water still being unfairly distributed, and yet the long arm of Israel's security forces seem to have eyes only for Palestinian children throwing stones, and not for the squatters openly denying Palestinians their land. Or the interrogaters among their own, who regularly beat confessions out of suspects, many of whom will admit to anything when enough torture has been applied.

To make things clear - I don't deny that Arafat should do more to fight terrorism that originates in Palestinian-held areas. However, Israel needs to stop mercilessly bombarding Palestinian police and enforcement centers, and to discipline their own ranks with the same standards they plan to use to discipline Palestinian terrorists. Stopping torture might be an idea too, that the state openly admits to it, does make it rather difficult for anyone to trust them. I certainly wouldn't trust a government that admitted to such things...you wonder what they don't tell you. For these reasons, Arafat is unable and perhaps unwilling to crack the whip on his own, at least until Israel demonstrates its good faith by returning to the Oslo agreement. He has said this repeatedly, though it is rarely reported.

Your attempt to find direct proof of Arafat's involvement is commendable Gargoyle, but you've only found people's suspicions, not proof. Arms smuggling is a crime under the Nuremburg code, a fairly serious charge to bring against anyone. I don't doubt if such proof were found, Arafat would be joining that loveable (sic) gentleman Milosevic under close arrest in the Hague. Since it has not, we must presume his innocence and move on. Elements within his own authority stepped out of line, and he not only disciplined them, but charged senior members of his enforcement team. Their trials are ongoing, which is more than I can say for how much the Israelis have done to discipline their own.

Occy

Victor

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Neither had there ever been a serious policy review of torture conducted in Israel-

I understand there has been some sort of judicial review in one of the higher Israeli courts, but it found that torture was 'expedient' (well this is against a background of judicial partiality, arbitary internment, arrest of civilians by military, state violence, judicial and extra-judicial executions ... the list goes on).

---

A friend spent some time growing up in Israel (her father was in the army). Her room was burgled one night and her and her sister confronted the burgler, but he ran off. She latter picked him out in a market place and called the police. The only question the police wanted answered was whether he was Israeli or Arab.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Your attempt to find direct proof of Arafat's involvement is commendable Gargoyle, but you've only found people's suspicions, not proof.
Occy

Bob, you didn't ask for proof that Arafat was actively supporting terrorism; you asked for proof that the PA was supporting terrorism.

Now, as for definitive "proof", if you're determined not to believe anything then there's nothing I can do about it. In my mind, there's more than enough out there to show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the PLO does actively support terrorism.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Gargoyle


Bob, you didn't ask for proof that Arafat was actively supporting terrorism; you asked for proof that the PA was supporting terrorism.

Now, as for definitive "proof", if you're determined not to believe anything then there's nothing I can do about it. In my mind, there's more than enough out there to show "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the PLO does actively support terrorism.

You seem to have missed the point. Beyond accusations, there is nothing in those articles that suggests that the PA sponsor terrorism. They ordered arms, illegally certainly, and 3 senior officials are facing trial for it. Don't you think we should at least hear their evidence before jumping to any conclusions about terrorism? Innocent until proven guilty and all that... Btw, as far as I know, the PLO no longer exists as an official entity, though I might be wrong of course.

Occy

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Victor

<snip>...The only question the police wanted answered was whether he was Israeli or Arab.

This is one of the reasons the Israelis have such an excellent track record on airline security with El Al. The first thing they determine is: Are you an arab or a jew?

If you are a Jew, you go through a modest security check and board with little or no issues more often than not. If you are a (non-jew) gentile, you should show up earlier and will be put through a more rigourous screening. If you are an arab, you'd better show up 4 or 5 hours early and be prepared to be interrogated and searched, because that is what is going to happen.

Is this fair? No (at least if you are a non-terrorist arab). Does it work? Absolutely. El Al has not had a terrorist incident in more than 30 years despite being the number one target in a region where the people (outside of Israel) would love to see news of a bombing or hijacking of an El Al flight.

Victor

Originally posted by Gargoyle
This is one of the reasons the Israelis have such an excellent track record on airline security with El Al. The first thing they determine is: Are you an arab or a jew?

What if you are a Jewish Arab (rare I admit). Or neither Jew nor Arab. Semantics, I know.

The point was (a) she had already identified him to the police (b) the police did not appear to be concerned with the crime per se, but the suspect's ethnic origin.

Clintons Cat

Gargoyle such a screening process leaves a massive hole in Israeli Security Measures, Do you think an arab gunman would have been able to get as close to rabin as to shoot him at point blank range?

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
Gargoyle such a screening process leaves a massive hole in Israeli Security Measures, Do you think an arab gunman would have been able to get as close to rabin as to shoot him at point blank range?

No, an arab wouldn't have gotten anywhere near. Yes, you are correct that it leaves a gaping security hole for disgruntled Jews.

However, it does more or less statistically eliminate the possibility of plane hijackings or bombings.

GerK

Originally posted by Gargoyle

If you are a Jew, you go through a modest security check and board with little or no issues more often than not. If you are a (non-jew) gentile, you should show up earlier and will be put through a more rigourous screening. If you are an arab, you'd better show up 4 or 5 hours early and be prepared to be interrogated and searched, because that is what is going to happen.

Is this fair? No (at least if you are a non-terrorist arab). Does it work? Absolutely. El Al has not had a terrorist incident in more than 30 years despite being the number one target in a region where the people (outside of Israel) would love to see news of a bombing or hijacking of an El Al flight.

Gargoyle, what you are describing is a logical arguement in favor of institutionalized racism. The fact is that, like that majority of people in Northern Ireland, the majority of Palestinians are not terrorists and if you employ clearly racist policies such as this, you make an enemy out of every generation of people who have to endure it.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by GerK


Gargoyle, what you are describing is a logical arguement in favor of institutionalized racism. The fact is that, like that majority of people in Northern Ireland, the majority of Palestinians are not terrorists and if you employ clearly racist policies such as this, you make an enemy out of every generation of people who have to endure it.

I'm not saying whether I favour it or not, only that it is very effective.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

As effective say as, stamping out genetic disease by sterilizing all those who are carriers or suffer from it? Please...

Gargoyle

Pretty poor analogy, bob.

Quite a stretch to go from airport security to forced sterilizations. But, you are correct, that would eliminate a number of genetic diseases.

Clintons Cat

However, it does more or less statistically eliminate the possibility of plane hijackings or bombings.

Lucky for us that only arabs hi jack airoplanes then?

Sand

Theres certainly a higher probability of an Arab hijacking an Israeli plane than there is of an Israeli - or rather there would be without the rather draconian security measures, similar to the probability of a suicide bomber attacking an Israeli target being Arabic as opposed to Israeli.

Clintons Cat

how about an arab that looks like a jew with forged papers?
Or a jewish zionist group who feel sharon has betrayed them for being too soft on arafat?
Statistics are fine up to a point.Up till september 11 2001 there had not been a single incident of Domestic American flights being hi jacked.
I Feel It Is A False Sense Of Security

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Clintons Cat


Lucky for us that only arabs hi jack airoplanes then?

Statistically speaking, if you say (non-israeli)middle-easterners instead of arabs, this is a reasonably safe assumption, with a few notable exceptions.

It is especially the case for Israel, as there has been only one case I am aware of where Jews have hijacked a plane, and that was more than 30 years ago.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
how about an arab that looks like a jew with forged papers?
Or a jewish zionist group who feel sharon has betrayed them for being too soft on arafat?
Statistics are fine up to a point.Up till september 11 2001 there had not been a single incident of Domestic American flights being hi jacked.
I Feel It Is A False Sense Of Security

El Al's track record speaks for itself IMO. I don't know how they tell an Arab with false papers, but obviously they can or they would probably have had numerous planes bombed or hijacked.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

My analogy was an exaggeration used to shock and drive home a point- the point that there are better practical and more acceptable ethical ways of doing things than purely the most effective measure. Speaking of effective measures, wouldn't El Al have a better deal of it by pressuring the Israeli government to help remove the reason for terrorists wanting to hijack/bomb planes? After all, 9/11 showed that there is very little that can be done about a hijack team who don't care about their own lives or of those on board- security measures are of nearly no use when there are innumerable ways to smuggle small weapons on board- the 9/11 bunch did it with box-cutters ffs. Heck, the Air France flight 2 years back was hijacked with spokes pulled from the wheelchair of a disabled passenger. What are you going to do- remove all sharp objects from fountain pens to letter openers from anyone who looks like an Arab? Hardly practical- or ethical either, being as institutionally racist a policy as it is- I find it repugnant.

It would perhaps be better if the Israelis tackled this issue head on, and addressed the root cause of terrorism, ie- the huge list of Palestinian grievances. Think of the cost in human life (palestinian, israeli jews, arabs, muslims and christians) and in funds- billions of dollars spent on 'defense' and 'security' consisting of charging military forces into residential areas in territory they have no right to, billions more on airline security and personal protection- is it really worth it? Or is it achieving anything as a policy? The only way to prevent terrorist hijackings or at least reduce substantially the risk that they might occur is to pursue a concilliatory and diplomatic stance. Ever wonder why swissair, lufthansa and british airways rarely have hijacker trouble and El Air do? Perhaps it is their respective governments' approaches that is the key- one of restraint and tolerance, not wave after wave of what appears to be inflammatory violence to please the hard right.

Occy