Hampering The War On Terror

The US is saying that they oppose the expulsion of Yassir Arafat. The President’s spokesman also said something exceptionally dumb:

McClellan volunteered also a reminder that Bush wants to see a Palestinian state established in two years on land now held by Israel.

"His views are that we need to get the parties back focused on moving forward," the spokesman said.

To be perfectly honest, if the President believes this issue will be solved by a few treaties and in two years, he’s being exceptionally naive.

As long as Arafat is in power he will do what he can to destroy the peace process. If Israel and the Palestinians are at peace, then there’s no need for Yassir Arafat. Arafat has absolutely no interest in creating a peaceful coexistance. The Palestinians do not and will not recognize the right of Israel to continue to exist. Under such circumstances there can be no possibility of any real or lasting peace.

Unless Arafat is exiled or dead, the roadmap cannot continue and would be a pointless gesture. If the former is not acceptable to the US, then I suggest the latter.

20 thoughts on “Hampering The War On Terror

  1. You cannot be naive enough to think removing Yassir Arafat by the only feasable means Israel has will do anything but unleash a shitstorm from all sides upon them. How is that going to improve things?

    Oh yeah, I’m still waiting for your better solution the greater Israel problem.

  2. Jesus Tapdancing Christ can we get an edit post option already!!! Perl should be easy for you…

    Sigh… forget the first post, here’s the correct version.

    You cannot be naive enough to think removing Yassir Arafat by the only feasable means Israel will do anything but unleash a shitstorm from all sides upon them. How is that going to improve things?

    Oh yeah, I’m still waiting for your better solution the greater Israel problem.

  3. I think I’ve seen a video were Arafat was smiling. Well, I don’t really know if he was smiling or what, but anyway the muscles of his face were moving, which prove he is alive: Killing him would be a crime. How one can deny the right to live to Arafat is beyond me.

    When I see that your suggestion is to kill Arafat, I suggest you replace the title of your website by: “Fascism with Attitude”.

    Are you the kind of guy that think that killing opposants is a logical way to make good politic? Because if yes, Benito, Adolf, and Mr.”SoDawn Insane” himself are on your side. who’s evil again?

    “The Palestinians do not and will not recognize the right of Israel to continue to exist”

    Well…they already did. Switch :” palestinians/Israel” and it suddendly make sense.

  4. Jay, where do you get such wonderful trolls?

    France. 🙂

    In all seriousness, as I’ve stated before Arafat doesn’t want to peace process to go forwards. What’s in it for him? If the Palestinians are at peace with Israel, what role would Arafat play? He’s strictly a creature of the intifada (which by the way is the Arabic verb for shaking off a sickness – which shows what regard they have for the Jews). If the war ends, he becomes irrelevant.

    The only was in which the peace process can move forward is if Arafat is dead. Until then, he will continue to undermine any efforts that might lead towards peace, as he did with Abu Mazen this week.

    Quite frankly, Arafat is an enemy of peace, he is a terrorist and is personally responsible for the murder of dozens of innocent Jews, several Europeans, and several Americans. He deserves to be punished for his crimes against humanity, and I would not be bothered in the slightest if the Israels simply wiped him off the face of the planet.

    (BTW, in order to do an edit post function I would have to write a registration system for MT. This would be one hell of a project, and I’m not up to adding another major project for free. Now, if a $100 shows up in the tipjar, I’d consider it, but I have a feeling that isn’t going to be happening anytime soon.)

  5. following the post from spoons, I decided to have a look at his website (or what I assume his blog is, on the list on the left)…after reading some posts and comments, and moving to other blogs linked to that one (which I never really did before due to a lack of time and will probably), I just realized how you (Jay) must feel like the “weakest link” among your fellow thinkers.

    I also realized how dangerous you guys are: Spreading words of violence, refusing the “freedom of speach” to other democracies, rejecting any kind of America’s responsibility in the global situation, while (paradoxically)proudly claming your world supremacy and only-superpowerness…

    Today I was reading a very nice book (french, you would probably not have heard of it) called “Windows of the world” (the name of the restaurant on the last floor of the WTC). Interestingly enough, this book was written one year after 9/11, while protesters were filling the streets of Paris (the author wrote it from the top of the “Tour Montparnasse” in Paris). It is an overview on many topics, such as the Babel Tower, the friendship between France and the US, the thoughts of many famous american artist who have been living in Paris, and else…Coming back to your website is a real desillusion: your poor, short-term, intolerant, zionistic view on the situation.(give me your adress, I’ll send the book)

    I don’t know if Arafat can help the peace process (and even if he is not, no one can decide of the right to live of others), but you definitely are no help either.

    To your poem “No Peace”, once again, I answer: Peace! Gandhi won using this way, and so will I.

    To your “request” for funding, I always wondered if these signs for donation worked? Maybe you should send an e-mail to Lockheed/Exxon/Halliburton & Co. They would surelly be delighted to reward such a good preacher.

  6. Believe me, I’ve heard of “Windows On The World”

    See here.

    And here.

    And here.

    I’ve even read parts of it.

    It is a sick piece of trash. It is a book that supposedly exists to “humanize” the events of September 11, but then only refers to those poor souls trapped in those towers by the designers of their clothes. It takes away their humanity and paints them as self-possessed and utterly materialistic sex fiends and literary grostesques.

    It is a piece of propaganda, no different from the stories the Nazis put out to paint the Jews in much the same colors. It is a work of hatred, a work that paints the victims of September 11 as something less than people.

    We do know some of what happened in those towers that day. Some people managed to send e-mails or get through the phone lines. They weren’t having sex and talking about the stock market, they were praying for help, trying to save those that could be saved, and calling their loved ones for the last time.

    Of course, that real human story doesn’t appear in Beigbeder’s disgusting little work. No, instead it’s so much easier to paint Americans as greedy and materialistic because that’s what the Paris intelligentsia wants us to be.

    Personally, I’ve half a mind to write a book about all the French hospital workers out screwing each other on the beaches while their grandparents were left to die of heatstroke in Paris. (15,000 and counting…) Of course that would be callous and mean and simply in horrendous taste.

    So why support a work that does the same for our national tragedy?

  7. well, if you only take two sentences, (the ones the links refer to), it definitely doesn’t have the same meaning.
    it’s funny to see how this terrorist attack is sometimes referred to as against the civilized world, or just the US depending on what you want to point out that day.

  8. (BTW, in order to do an edit post function I would have to write a registration system for MT. This would be one hell of a project, and I’m not up to adding another major project for free. Now, if a $100 shows up in the tipjar, I’d consider it, but I have a feeling that isn’t going to be happening anytime soon.)

    Doh! Good point. Sigh. I might just have to learn to write good english then. 🙂

    Anyway since not only did you not answer my question again (I don’t blame ya, it’s really hard one) and everyone else has gone waaaay off topic, I was wondering… how are we spinning the deaths in the recent European heat wave to thier supposedly incompitent medical systems when most people died in thier homes. (Or at least so I believe.)

    It seems to me you might have a good arguement for substandard European housing, which considering how old it all is, could be right. However I do see any reason to blame their medical system completely for this disaster.

  9. It’s france bashing time. no other reason. According to the UN, europe is still the best place to live in (on health issues).

  10. eventhough we’ve been “enlarging” the debate, from my point of view, the answer to your first question -in short- is: it’s not. If Israel engage in any further move again the already limited independance of palestinians, the stone throwers will be more numerous, iraqis will have less confidence in the ability of americans to be fair, some more countries in the world will stand to end Israel’s occupation (increasing the international mess).

  11. Here’s a good article on the failures of the French health system in regards to the recent heatwave.

    As for your original question (which got lost in the shuffle), here’s what I’d do to work on solving the Israeli/Palestinian problem:

    The Palestinians biggest problem is their leadership. Arafat doesn’t want peace. Hamas doesn’t want peace. Abbas might have, but he couldn’t bring peace because of Arafat and Hamas.

    The best way to do this is to remove Arafat and weaken Hamas into nothing. That means a protracted campaign of targeted assassinations.

    Meanwhile, finish the wall between the West Bank and Israel and brace against terrorist reactions. (Not that Hamas isn’t already hitting Israel with everything they have.)

    Let the situation simmer down. Covertly support Abbas or other moderates through any means necessary including propaganda and money.

    When a more moderate regime takes over (thanks to the covert efforts of Israel to support one) announce that Israel will once again meet with the new Palestinian leadership towards reimplementing a peace plan.

    Without Arafat and Hamas, then there’s a chance at a negotiated settlement. While they are still there, no such chance exists.

  12. sounds like a nice democratic plan. You forgot to mention what are you gonna do with the massiv crowd that rallied Arafat for the last two days? Just consider they are terrorists, and blow the whole city of Ramallah?
    On the other hand, why would you use another tactic when this one worked fine in the US (this is for the propaganda part).
    I can’t wait for the day one leader will say in a few years, in front of the UN security Council:”Mr Sharon, tear down that wall!”

  13. Well you’re sort of on the right track at least. Perhaps some targeted assassinations that don’t involve lobbing missiles into apartment buildings, and if so maybe some compensation for the innocents lost. Maybe a wall that didn’t trap tens of thousands of Palestinians in limbo might be a bit more effective. Keeping it at all seems hardly a way to win over the Palestinian people which is essential to the peace process, not that we seem to much care about them these days. Eliminating Arafat would be disasterous more than likely for reasons I have already mentioned, and considering that it was not Arafat, mainly Hamas that undermined Abbas (at least in the context of his resignation) he hardly matters anymore anyway. One success of late had been the marginalisation of Arafat; Abbas resigning gave him a lot more power back than anything Israel or Hamas could have done. Let’s just hope the replacement Arafat wants isn’t just some stooge.

  14. Well, I don’t know about those targeted assassinations (are there really that many s’s in that word?). I would think that what with “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life[…]” (you know where that is from, right… Yes, you are right. From the internet)

    Anyway. That document does not talk about Americans, or Christians, or nice people. All men (and I am assuming that in today’s terminology, we should really understand that as men and women) have the UNALIENABLE right to life. Experience shows that even that right can be taken from you, but only with proper procedure, trial, judge and jury.

    May Mr Arafat be just all you claim he is. According to the very foundations your (and yes, mine as well) country is built on, he has a right to life. Without due procedure he cannot, he must not be killed.

    I do understand if Israel wants to get rid of him. I can understand that it might seem easier to not have him around. (From a certain point of view.)

    Does that justify murder?

    I don’t think so.

    One of the great achievements of your system (and let me tell you, we owe much to that) is that no matter how justifyably angry any group of people may be at an individual, that individual is not to be killed by that group of people. Death penalty can only be carried out by state powers according to just procedures. To now go and advocate killing off supposed or actual murderers without due procedure would be letting go of one of the fundamental tenets of our society.

    State sanctioned killing is killing nevertheless.

  15. Well, I don’t know about those targeted assassinations (are there really that many s’s in that word?).

    Ok ok you got me! I’m illiterate!

    State sanctioned killing is killing nevertheless.

    Agreed, too bad no one else does.

  16. However, in war the rules change. It is clear that Hamas and Arafat’s Fatah have repeatedly called for war on Israel. In war, the assassination of political leaders is a longstanding strategy.

    I wouldn’t have any more bad feelings about someone putting a bullet through Arafat’s skull than I would about someone having done the same to Hitler or Stalin fifty years ago. Arafat is a terrorist who has declared war on Israel and damned the chances of the roadmap happening so long as he is in power. Exiling him leaves him free to continue to obstruct the peace process. The only way to ensure that there can be peace in the Middle East is to hope that Arafat dies (and tyrants seem to have cruelly long lives) or to do him in. Given the amount of lives that would be lost on both sides waiting, I believe the best of a set of bad options is to assassinate Arafat and deal with the consequences until a more sane leadership emerges.

  17. I was going to comment something really smart on the longstanding strategy, but then I forgot what it was – I been reading in the library from 9am down to right now (9pm), so I may be excused.

    However, you may want to reconsider your statement about Hitler and Stalin. (I am going nitpicky, I know.) That longstanding tradition, no, strategy is what you called it, applied, accoridng to your words, to enemy leaders during a war. Now, Hitler was indeed the enemy in WW2. Stalin was not, as you will remember from the various conferences (Malta, Potsdam…) and from how Germany was divided after the war. Stalin may have been was major pain in America’s political butt, and he was a despot for all I know, but your strategy thingy cannot be applied to him.

    Ha! Take that. I am off for beer now!


  18. Lucky you…

    You’re partially right about Stalin, although seeing him gone after April 1945 would have been a good thing for the world, especially for East Germany, what was then Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.