Shalom says killing Arafat is not Israeli gov't policy

[Gimel]

Israel has not adopted a formal decision to kill Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said Monday, in an apparent attempt to soften remarks made by Deputy
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "killing is definitely one of the options" under consideration by the Israeli government.

"We are trying to eliminate all the heads of terror, and Arafat
is one of the heads of terror," Olmert told Israel Radio on
Sunday. "In my eyes, from a moral point of view, this is no
different from killing others who were involved in ... acts
of terror. It's only a practical question.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/340017.html

[Gimel]

1. UN votes today

The UN Security Council is voting deciding even at this moment whether to pass a resolution forbiding Israel to deport Arafat.

Is there another option?

Arafat loves the attention. Even now he is kissing babies in fron of his compound, waving and smiling, with his continuous "V" for villain sign.


Perhaps the Security Council will come up with another solution for Arafat. A retirement is long overdue.

[bemildred]

2. Delusional.

They continue to cling to the idea that if they just eliminate
a few "bad apples" everything will be fine, there are no policy
issues that need correction, they have not misgoverned in any
way, it's just these few evil people who popped up unexpectedly
out of nowhere, if we just eliminate them things will be fine
forever. It's like listening to Shrub talk about his tax cuts.

WRT the story, I guess the trial balloon got too many holes
shot in it, for now anyway.

[jos]

3. No. Cynical

I don't think they really believe in what they are saying. They are doing it for propaganda purposes. Why? Because it takes the heat off of them, and puts it one man, Arafat (sound familiar?) More importantly, it distracts people from focusing on the real problem, the occupation and the illegal settlements.

[Gimel]

4. You are saying then

that terror is not a problem? Or that Arafat has no control over his population?

[liberalhistorian]

5. No, no one is saying terror's not a problem,

but Israel and Sharon are a large part of the problem as well. First of all, Arafat does not have the total control over the population that Sharon seems to think he does. Whatever you think of him, he is still the elected leader of the Palestinians, and Israel has no right to just demand his removal or they'll do it themselves. That would be like Canada deciding that it doesn't like Shrub, so they're going to remove him or kill him themselves.

Second, the hard-right policies of that butcher and war criminal Sharon and his hate-filled Likud party have brought a lot of this on themselves with their insistence on maintaining and expanding the illegal settlements (and driving out the Palestinians who've lived there for centuries, taking their land, their water supply, etc., in order to do so), and targeting an entire race of people, not just Hamas and Hezbollah, for persecution and destruction. One would think that, of all the people in the world, the Jews, who have collectively suffered more persecution and genocide directed against them than any other group world wide combined, would understand the immorality and danger of that.

Removing Arafat would be the final match that sets off the tinderbox that will cause total destruction of that whole area. I cannot believe even Sharon cannot see that.

[StandWatie]

6. I'm saying that it isn't a problem

it's a complete red herring. Either you believe in self-determination or you don't. Regardless of what Palestinians do Israel has no right to do anything but guard it's borders and respond to attacks, I don't care if every last Palestinian over there is a "terrorist" you can't use that as an excuse to colonize the place and keep them as non-citizen, non-voting sweatshop labor.

[Gimel]

10. Canada suffers from attacks?

That would be like Canada deciding that it doesn't like Shrub, so they're going to remove him or kill him themselves.

I didn't know that terrorists from the US were infiltrating into Canada and killing people on the streets and in their homes.

[jos]

8. I'm saying that

the genesis of the problem is the occupation and the illegal settlements.

As for Arafat, I have no idea how much control he has.

[bemildred]

7. That depends on who "they" is.

Some are delusional, the ones who buy the "we just have to kill
all the leaders" idea, some are cynical, the ones who are selling
that idea when they know better.

[Gimel]

9. A new concept in warfare

usually it's the foot soldiers that are killed in battle.

[StandWatie]

11. it's not new

it's actually quite old and was consigned to the trash for a number of reasons that will become quite clear to the entire world as Iraq plunges into ungovernable anarchy.

Of course this assumes that Israeli's care one bit if that does happen in the West Bank and if you assume that Sharon would like to see the place in as much turmoil as you can possibly generate and has zero interest in talking with anyone over there it could make sense.

[Gimel]

13. Palestinians have a government

Yes, but it doesn't govern. Hamas does. Arafat is a dictator, but there are many leaders who would do well in his stead. Even a woman legislator who would be an excellent choice: Hanan Ashrawi.

On edit: the point I want to make is that Arafat's removal would be quickly filled. The Legistature could call elections, there could be appointed a temporary president. There are many options. It's not at all like Iraq, with Saddam as dictator for 30 some years.

[bemildred]

15. I was talking about the "eliminate the heads of terror"

theory. Which coincides with what you are saying. The result
should be something like what you would get if you killed all
the warlords in Afghanistan or Somalia: a power struggle among
wannabe warlords and more chaos.

Your analogy to Iraq works because it was run on Stalinist
totalitarian lines, and we just demolished the state apparatus
without putting anything else in its place. Instant "failed state".

The point in either case is the lack of any means to maintain
public order, complete chaos, Dumbsfeld will just love it.

Brings to mind the wingwalkers creed: Don't let go of one thing
until you have a sure grip on something else.

[bemildred]

12. Not new at all.

There are just usually a lot fewer leaders, and they are usually
in the rear. Whacking the opposing General has worked well many
times, esp. if he's a good one, but that would be in a conventional
combat situation, which this is not. General Yamamoto in WWII comes to mind.

Edit: if the opposing general is a lousy one, e.g. Arafat or Sharon,
one might well want to keep him around.

[tinnypriv]

14. How come Israeli guys don't say "liquidate" in English?

Sound a little too rough for US taxpayers? :eyes: