Israel says Arafat wasted chance for freedom

LINDA MOTTRAM: Israel says the Palestinian President Yasser Arafat has blown a perfect opportunity to free himself from a year-and-a-half-long siege of his Ramallah headquarters.

Under an American-sponsored plan, Palestinian security forces moved into Mr Arafat's compound arresting 17 wanted men from the militant al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, with a pledge to move them to a jail in Jericho.

In return, it was suggested that Israel would pull its tanks and troops back from the compound. But in an interview with AM, the most wanted al-Aqsa leader inside the compound says his group is going nowhere.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s916544.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Arafat tried to preserve the cease-fire, he loses his chance for freedom?

Never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
I guess he could be skipping down the street right now,
free as a bird, but nooooo ...

Seriously, I can't figure out what he's up to, but this
"story" is bull manure.

so nothing changes and the Israelis have no security except that which they alone enforce. How sad that such a fruitless policy has defenders.

The cease-fire, however futile and temporary, has lessened the violence in the region. Every effort should be made to make it last as long as possible. Though I hate to agree with terrorists, they were right when they said it didn't matter whether they were surrounded in Jericho or Rammallah.

The Palestinians have no security. They have no security from huge walls being built in the middle of their land, from bulldozers bulldozing their land to make room for settlements, from IDF soldiers firing upon them for whatever reason. Their humanitarian situation is terrible. When that ends, the terrorism will be lessened. To kill it, however, a joint anti-terror cooperation treaty will ahve to be ratified by both sides to combat terrorism.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and then sit down in the middle of their living room and tell them this is now your house and they better leave.

People get upset.

Israel is a theocracy that calls itself a democracy. If you are a democracy you are responsible what your government does in your name (yes - that is true for us, too).

I have yet to see the Israelis marching in the streets asking for freedom for the Palestinians.

What I have seen is a bunch of angry madmen (apparently settlers) that entertain the notion of robbing the remaining Palestinians of everything they own.

Do you see the impressions the Palestinians must be getting? If I can see it here on Fox News (when I turn the sound off) then as sure as heck can they.

We as Americans are responsible for the actions of our elected representatives. So are the Israelis.

You may not like it. In this case you must stand up and make a clear case for either that your country is not a democracy or that you oppose.

As I said - no marching in the streets in Israel. I guess they would be rounded up pretty quickly.

"It's what happens when you steal people's stuff"

This is what the Palestinians do to Isralis. Sorry, you've got the shoe on the wrong foot.

There are plenty of demonstrations in Israel for social causes, for Peace Now and many other issues. Currently, a trend was started by a single mother named Ricki Knafo who marched a hundred miles to Jerusalem. She has been joined by dozens of others, including a Beduin group demonstrating for consideration of their illegaly built dwellings.

Yes Israel is a democracy, and your statements are very confused.

Where did that come from? Or is it the Palestinians who are building a gigantic so-called security wall on the Israelis' land?

You cannot say you love humanity when you refuse to see the Palestinians as people suffering also!

Try imagining what watching your house get bull-dozed and the orange grove in your family stolen might do to you. Try to imagine check-points everywhere and your children starving, thirsty because settlers have stolen your land and your water.

If your only sympathy is for Israelis, then you do not love humanity!

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: !

no reason at all. That is truly amazing how one-sided and blind people can be. Your picture is truly pathetic in two regards. First because of what you said, and secondly because you have no perspective on the reality.

:tinfoilhat:

is one-sided? I don't get that, Gimel. Please explain.

Not surprisingly, that made absolutely no sense.

I dunno though... Could just be me blinded by that overwhelming desire for peace and justice :shrug:

Pardon me while I roll on the floor laughing.

Finally exposed as the insidious bigot that his "generally nice and fair" approach sought to keep hidden. :eyes:

I have great empathy with them. I simply have no empathy with generals who seek no peace trying to destroy large sections of the Palestinian's land.

The best way to generate peace and security in the region for all is to ensure that those harmed and those oppressed cease to be that way. There are two major causes of harm and oppression in the area: Palestinian terrorism, and Israeli oppression. Stop the Israeli oppression, and much of the Palestinian terrorism will go away. Make a joint security cooperation treaty of some sort between the State of Israel and the State of Palestine, and the rest will go away. All we need now is leaders who can see both sides and do have a strong love and inclination to make peace.

Darranar!

:toast:

If Arafat gives anything up to get rid of those tanks he is done for (maybe a good thing, but that is another topic). This is about credibility. Israel can put those tanks back at any time so if he hands over some guys to get them to leave, they'll just come back for more, and more... etc.

he would turn over these terrorists - with no tanks needed.

And if the Palestiniacs on this board had any interest in peace, or in the Roadmap, they would call for him to do so.

That isn't working for peace, that's working for Sharon's interests. Since Sharons interests have nothing to do with promoting peace, I am happy that Arafat ignored them.

He'd kick the pro ethnic cleansers out of his government.

Your slurs are a joke.

You have heard of Eating Raoul. Sharon wants Arafat that bad.

The only thing preferable to keeping him caged is eliminating him.

It would be good.

I think he is like the Palestinian Mandela.
I think you should have more respect for this great man.
Please explain your self.

and I am off topic:

Did anyone within the Manhattan Project win a Nobel Prize for anything?

But Nobel, the man, invented a powerful explosive, so who knows.

Some of the participants were assholes, also,
Teller comes to mind.

But this does demonstrate rather explicitly that one
man's Nobel Peace Prize winner is another man's terrorist.
Heh.

I thought for sure we were aware of that, while at the very same time the concensus remains split. Which at the very least gives us something to argue about. That was why I interjected with that query regarding the Manhattan Project. In an effort to make that very point.

I believe I raised a similar analogy with comparisons between the KKK and the Black Panthers. KKK good terrorist, as long as they maintain a lo-pro. Black Panthers squash like palmetto bugs, at the time bad terrorist. CIA good terrorists. Mafia bad terrorists, especially if they don't pay their taxes. Same arguments. The news is not just old it's ancient.

what they are doing, like the Panthers, who wanted to change
things. They weren't very deep anyway, as I remember, but the
reaction was out of proportion, because they wanted change, and
they were advocates for an official designated underclass group,
hence clearly they were a threat to America.

The KKK on the other hand wanted to keep things the way they
were, they wanted to keep some people around they could look down
on, no easy task that, so even though a lynching might look like
terrorism, it really wasn't, see? it was defending the status quo,
and hence defending America.

It is also, as my friend The Magistrate pointed out one time,
somewhat of a trade dispute. Official government employed killers
and whatnot don't like private free-lance competition, pursuing
their own private policies instead of the ones sanctioned by the
morons running the government. There is actually something to be
said for this point of view, as the situation in say Liberia or
Somalia or Chechnya makes clear. On the other hand, if the government
itself is winging it as far as its own rules and laws and so on,
the citizens have little choice. If the law does not protect you,
why should you give a, um, uh, darn about the law?

It seems clear that this is a good deal of the problem with the
Palestinians, the law does not protect them, so they are thrashing
around in various ways, some of them quite ugly, trying to protect
and take care of their own selves.

But of course these are just my silly opinions.

running the government have always defined terms, words, enemies, to protect private enterprises, secret fundin, the various pirates coming on and off the corporate dole and whatnots. Interestingly, I just discovered that even when rape laws were first placed on the books, the decision had more to do with property rights, than any real understanding of the violation itself, but I have digressed slightly.

Sooo YES it is clear it is a good deal of the problem, but for one minor difference: the Africans were brought to the Americas and most opted not to return to their mother country (but for the few following along in the footstep's of Marcus Garvey); the Palestinians were pushed for their mother country and would prefer to be allowed to return and live on it. To self determine. Make their own laws.

Although for the most part with some very minor divergence, we seem to be in the same ballpark.

visciousness, for sheer size and scope and duration, but that
is a large subject. I just wanted to say that I in no way
meant to compare it to the current situation in Israel.

There are some loose analogies to be made every now and again, however, yes Slavery in my book has got to be the most heinous travesty going and still going and still going... but for the inability to name it what it really was and is. You know those property right!

He wants a Palestinian state! Therefore, he is a terrorist. Or, at least, that's what AIPAC says... :eyes:

Maybe one who hits back, but I wouldn't be surprised
if Gandhi was called a terrorist at one time or another.

Not that Arafat is anything like Gandhi, and in fact I mostly
agree with Herschel's opinion of Arafat. But so what, Sharon is a
terrorist asshole too, and killing him or deporting him would
work just great for me.

Edit: Gandhi deserves to have his name spelled right.

That was essentially my point.

I was just a little bored and wanted to go
blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah ...
:-)

You lil' devil you...

BTW didn't the South African Apartheid govt. label Mandela a "murderous, terrorist, corrupt, thug" also?

It is actually fairly difficult to find a "father of his
country" type of fellow that was not a "terrorist" or
"criminal brigand" or "thug" or some such thing at one time.
Israel itself is a perfect example of this fact.

You make the point, beautifully.