response 25 of 604:

Mar 31 04:26 UTC 2002

saw an interesting report that had Geraldo talking to several leaders of teh
4 major players sending in the suicide bombers.  There general attitude is
they don't care who is in chage where, they will continue to fight as long
as isreal exists.

response 27 of 604:

Mar 31 05:49 UTC 2002

Can we trade Geraldo for Daniel Pearl?

response 29 of 604:

Mar 31 17:30 UTC 2002

I'll be damned.  I actually know quite a bit about the situation, but I've
managed to miss that.  And the movie I saw recently really did mislead on the
topic.

The Palestinian movement has included Christians from the beginning.  While
some segments of it are "grossly Islamic," not all of it is, and it's an
oversimplification to suggest otherwise.

response 31 of 604:

Apr 1 01:55 UTC 2002

At this point, i think that those in charge on both sides see more and
bloodier violence as being *far* better for their own self interests
than peace.  It would be nice if the larger powers behind the two sides
had the will & means to change this, but sadly i don't see anything to
suggest that such is the case.

Maybe the <gag> best we can hope for is that after much, much more 
violence, death, and distruction, the little people on both sides will
get most of the hate and bloodlust worked out their systems and start
asking their leaders "what kind of hell-on-Earth are you turning this
place into and why shouldn't we ditch you for somebody who's trying to
build a future worth living in?"

response 33 of 604:

Apr 1 02:26 UTC 2002

Oh, no, he's not "playing a game"; he really _does_ want the violence to end.
But only when he's gotten everything he wants.

Just like everybody else.

response 35 of 604:

Apr 1 16:27 UTC 2002

Mary, re #3:

> They state quite clearly that all it will take  to end a ceasefire is for
> any violence against Israeli.  Wow.  They put  out an invitation to scuttle
> the process

Sharon clarified that what he wants prior to resuming peace negotiations is
a real effort on the part of Arafat to stem the violence (not empty words in
English while he continues to incite violence in Arabic). If Arafat were truly
working against the terrorists (not with them), a single incident would not
scuttle the process.

Last month Sharon rescinded his requirement (on the basis of the recommend-
ations of the Mitchell Report) for a period of quiet prior to the resumption
of negotiations. Guess what? Arafat found new excuses.

What is most absurd is that you refuse to recognize that the peace process
was scuttled when Arafat rejected the paradigm of compromise and ordered
violence following the Camp David summit. Instead you are caught up with
Sharon, saying that IF Arafat ordered a ceasefire and IF a major terrorist
attack happened despite Arafat's best efforts and IF Sharon then broke off
negotiations that this somehow proves that Sharon has scuttled the process.

The simple truth is that until Arafat renounces terrorism as a political
tool and until he stops harboring and consorting with terrorists, there is
no hope for the peace process.

> I don't believe he has much real power over the situation.

Arafat's "police" force numbers about 40,000 troops (per capita, it's about
4x the size of Detroit's police force). Hamas numbers about 1500 fighters and
Islamic Jihad is even smaller.  The excuse that Arafat can't act because
Israel has bombed some empty buildings rings rather hollow -- especially since
Israel only targeted these buildings months after the PA police was not
utilized to perform as required by the Oslo Agreements and when it becamse
clear that the PA police was participating in attacks on Israeli civilians
rather than working to prevent them.

Furthermore, roughly half of the terrorism attacks are committed by Arafat's
own militias (Fatah Hawks, Tanzim, Al Aqsa Brigade, Force 17), whose
commanders state that they are loyal to Arafat. Ergo, they have never received
an order to ceasefire and to the contrary have received orders to perpetrate
violence and terrorism.

Two weeks ago, the USA Today reported that:

        Terrorist says orders come from Arafat

        TULKARM, West Bank - A leader of the largest Palestinian terrorist
        group spearheading suicide bombings and other attacks against Israel
        says he is following the orders of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
        "Our group is an integral part of Fatah," says Maslama Thabet, 33, a
        leader of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Fatah, headed by Arafat, is
        the largest group in the Palestinian Authority, the government of
        the autonomous Palestinian territories.

        http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/03/14/usat-brigades.htm

response 37 of 604:

Apr 2 00:03 UTC 2002

I'm not entirely sure that killing Yassar Arafat would be what it took 
to stop the violence.  In fact, I think it would make him a martyr and 
make the situation worse.  That, I think, is why Sharon wants to catch 
him alive and ship him out.

response 39 of 604:

Apr 2 04:48 UTC 2002

David, Israel has nothing to gain by killing Arafat and has no intention
of doing so. This would make Arafat relevant again, but not in a way which
would benefit Israel. Israel's goal is to pressure Arafat into choosing to
make himself relevant. If Arafat ended up being "accidentally" shot, I'd
suspect his bodygaurds, not Israel.

klg, Frankly, I think Arafat is delusional enough to have thought that
he could denounce Camp David, tour world capitals and gain support for
a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI), allowing him to deliver
a Palestinian Arab state on his own terms (well, not really since it
would have been restricted only to the territories Israel had already
given the PA). The important point, though, is that he would have a
state WITHOUT making peace with Israel.

Given that Arab apologists were belaboring the inadequacy of Clinton's
compromise (which would have given the PA a state on 100% of Gaza and a
CONTIGUOUS 91% of the West Bank), how could anyone possibly fault them
for not being happy with only a 43% of these territories in a discontiguous
patchwork? Surely terrorism and violence would be "understandable" and
Arafat could return to his old tactic, attempting to provoke a war so
that Israel could be destroyed.

Yet UDI fizzled precisely because the international community realized
the value of the offer Arafat had just rejected out of hand (and one
hopes it was also understood that UDI would be a flagrant violation of
the Oslo process, which was not perceived as dead at the time).

Unable to move forward and unwilling to crawl back to the negotiating
table in such a weakened position, Arafat's out was to initiate violence.
Since it served his purpose (boosted his ratings and got Barak to offer
additional unilateral concessions), he has stuck with the political violence
ever since, hoping that the world will pressure Israeli to unilaterally
withdraw from additional territories in an effort to appease the terrorists.

In yesterday's NY Times, Thomas Friedman makes a very strong case why this
would be disasterous.  See "Suicidal Lies" (3/31/02): http://www.nytimes.co
m/2002/03/31/opinion/31FRIE.html?ex=^P18559515&ei==1&en=_7a8a15e5722637

It is imperative that the international community pressure Arafat to (once
again) renounce terrorism and order a ceasefire (in Arabic, not just English),
abide by his committments at Oslo, and return to the negotiating table.

response 41 of 604:

Apr 2 08:55 UTC 2002

Rane, perhaps you don't realize the very point you were repeating.
The Arabs refuse to end their violence and terrorism precisely because
they perceive that it serves their purposes.

They aren't "winning" because of the death ratio -- surely a society that
encourages and glorifies 16 year old girls who strap dynamite to their
bodies and murder innocent civilians isn't one that values the sanctity of
life and uses a death ratio as a marker of success.

They perceive themselves as successful because Israelis are dying, period.
Suicide bombings are celebrated because Israelis are dying, just as they
celebrated the slaughter of thousands of Americans on 9/11.

This admission, that the Arabs who walked away from the negotiation table
and initiated the violence and terrorism are the ones who are perpetuating
it undermines two other myths: the vilification of Sharon (just as Saddam
Hussein has outlasted half-a-dozen American presidents, so too has Arafat
outlasted half-a-dozen Israeli prime ministers) and the myth of a cycle of
violence.

With US envoy Zinni due to arrive and in anticipation of the Arab League
summit, Israeli unilaterally withdrew its troops from Area A and relaxed
security measures. It was rewarded with a suicide bombing, but showed
restraint and did not retaliate. Then a second suicide bombing with no
Israeli response. Then a third, fourth, fifth and sixth suicide bombing.
The deaths of scores of Israelis. Yet Israel showed restraint and accepted
Zinnis bridging proposals.

Zinni thought he was one step away from success. That's when Arafat threw
him a curve ball by imposing new conditions (contravening the Mitchell
recommendations which, in theory, Arafat had accepted). This was followed
by a 7th suicide bombing, the Passover Massacre. Another 22 Israelis were
murdered in cold blood while attempting to celebrate a holiday feast.
Another suicide bombing followed the next day. It was clear that the
(failing) Zinni mission and unilateral Israeli withdrawal and restraint
were doing nothing to pause or deter the terrorist attacks. To the contrary,
Israel was much more vulnerable, the victim of an unprecedented rash of
attacks (by now 11 suicide bombings in 14 days, if I haven't lost count,
including one outside a medical facility).

Since Arafat (in Arabic) called for more suicide attacks and since the PA
police were unwilling to patrol Area A, Israel had no option other than to
send its troops into these areas -- something every other country in the
world would do in a similar situation.

Suddenly the useful idiots came out of the woodwork. People who had seemingly
lost their voices or couldn't be bothered to condemn the suicide bombings or
call on Arafat to agree to and order a ceasefire, people who swept under the
carpet the murder of two members of the international peace monitor team in
Hebron by Arab gunmen, rushed to condemn Israel's act of self-defense as
aggression (an outrageous reversal of cause & effect), pretending to be our
moral compass. 40 "peace activists" rushed to embrace Arafat, one of the
worlds foremost terrorists, to ensure that no harm came to him.

Israel should arrest Arafat and extradite him to the US, where he can join
his close associates currently being held at Guantanamo while awaiting trial
for the murder of American citizens and diplomats.

response 43 of 604:

Apr 2 09:16 UTC 2002

And extradition of Arafat, as lk suggests, will I doubt be possible.  Arafat
wants to be a martyr and is prepared to die in Ramallah.   Arafat will not
let himself be taken alive.  Because he knows that regardless of who shoots
him, if he dies the Israelis will be blamed by his people, and he will 
become a mythical figure to arabs around the world.  The Israeli operation
to contain him is already doing that.  It is causing Arafat's popularity
among arab peoples to skyrocket.   There are plenty of factions among
the Palestinians, and Arafat realizes the one thing that could bring all
of his people together, unify his people, bring all the militant and
radical factions together, would be his death at the hands of the Israelis.


And he can do that now if he wants.  He and his men can deliberately try to
shoot their way out of the compound and force the Israelis to kill them. 
I wouldnt doubt Arafat would do that if things became desperate enough.

response 45 of 604:

Apr 2 19:25 UTC 2002

What I wonder is, what does Arafat do now to earn his pay? Is there
an  Authority government functioning? 

response 47 of 604:

Apr 2 22:18 UTC 2002

So Russ, Leeron, and klg all basically give the same argument:  Arabs are
uncivilized animals.

response 49 of 604:

Apr 2 23:19 UTC 2002

I don't think that's what they were saying, Scott.  I think they were 
saying that A) their demands are unreasonable given the circumstances 
and B) they are unlikely to keep their word in any case (as evidence 
the fact that Arafat has promised that he would call for a ceasefire 
among his people and has yet to do so)