The Netanyahu Factor [Archive]

NewsGuy

11-04-2002, 10:19 AM

When the Labour party bolted from Israel's ruling coalition, a new political era promised to unfold, with opportunity for a fresh, new direction to move the country forward on the road to peace and prosperity. With Ariel Sharon at the helm, Shaul Mofaz in the role of Defense Minister, and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the post of Foreign Minister, there was for a brief while, the welcome possibility of Israel being led by an "all-star Dream Team" of the political Right. But, in the Middle East it is difficult sometimes to bet even on a sure thing, much less hang hopes on the mercurial machinations of Israeli politics.

Ariel Sharon, Shaul Mofaz and Benjamin Netanyahu are, to a great extent, unified in their basic political outlook. They hail from a long and distinguished line of steadfast Zionist role models like Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and the like.

As a result of repeated attempts by the Arab world to destroy Israel, they have all learned firsthand that the prerequisite for peace in the Middle East must be based on uncompromising and irrevocable security guarantees. In this regard, they concur that only a de-fanged and de-clawed Palestinian entity can be allowed to exist alongside Israel.

Like Rabin?

Yet, at the same time, the three leaders have come to understand that to navigate the State of Israel through the treacherous waters of international pressures, they must take a pragmatic approach. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, their positions now greatly reflect those of Labour's standard bearer, the late Yitzhak Rabin.

Rabin, now praised by rulers of the Arab world like Hosni Mubarak, King Hussein Junior, and leaders of the Western world, offered a realistic platform for peace with the Palestinians: First, there was to be no Palestinian State. Rather, Rabin agreed only to a Palestinian entity with the ambiguous status of "autonomy plus." Second, there was to be a complete end to Palestinian terrorism, and both parties were required to fulfill their obligations before forging ahead with further Israeli concessions.

Surprisingly, much of Rabin's views are now adopted by Likud leaders like Sharon and Netanyahu, while the Labour party's current Leftist positions would have been utterly rejected by Rabin. In fact, it could be argued that Sharon's position has moved even more to the Left than that of Rabin, as Sharon publicly stated that that he would support the establishment of a Palestinian State -- unlike Rabin's refusal to do so.

Team Troubles

Nonetheless, there are complications arising with the formation of Israel's Dream Team. Benjamin Netanyahu, although hard at work to return to the leadership limelight, is less than eager to play second fiddle to Ariel Sharon. On the contrary, Netanyahu is poised to run for the position of Prime Minister as a replacement for Sharon. But Netanyahu's bid for reelection is a risky one.

Despite Netanyahu's polished style and considerable charisma, his Achilles' Heel is his lack of ability to hold on to a fractious cabinet. Bibi finds it extremely difficult to cater to the multitude of special interest groups, whose selfish and petty agendas often conflict with Netanyahu's vision, as well as being constantly at odds with each other.

Netanyahu also has a disadvantage of wanting to micromanage Israel's policies. Although he is Israel's best technical spokesperson, he often forgets that he is the leader of a team comprised of accomplished professionals, who must be given the authority to act on their own according to agreed guidelines. Instead, Bibi alienated several of his cabinet members by attempting to marginalize them and take over their "big picture" duties, while expecting them to carry out the behind-the-scenes low-level work. Naturally, Netanyahu's government was brought down in short order by the equivalent of a ministerial mutiny.

But Netanyahu is a particularly intelligent man. He has taken the lessons of his past to heart and has vowed to act differently in the future. Will Netanyahu do as he says, and change his strategy? His political opponents believe they are still dealing with the "old" Bibi and his host of leadership flaws. However, the ongoing wrangling over his acceptance of Sharon's offer of the position of Defense Minister may yield some clues.

Nothing New Under the Sun

Netanyahu has learned that a narrow majority in Knesset will expose the ruling party to endless blackmail from its smaller coalition partners. Already, parties like Shas and Moledet have presented exhaustive lists of unwelcome â€“ and unrealistic -- demands in exchange for their cooperation. And there is every reason to believe that their demands will only escalate if Likud needed to rely on them for political survival.

Although Netanyahu may have learned his lessons well and may now be a changed man, the system of Israeli politics has not changed at all since his first tenure. The same self-centered fringe groups are still circling the skies like vultures waiting to feed on the weakness of a narrow majority government. And it is precisely this trap that the seasoned Netanyahu seeks to avoid by calling for early elections at a time when Likud is at an all-time peek in its popularity. The more Knesset seats Likud wins in a general election, the fewer concessions will need to be made to Israel's political extortionist parties.
<p>
This is why the all-star political Dream Team of Sharon, Netanyahu and Mofaz, while seemingly a natural fit, bears its share of complications. And, until there is substantial reform of the parliamentary system, to implement a system that guarantees stability for at least a full-term in office, Israel's leadership will never be able to reach its potential. It will never be able to provide the level of civil service which the Israeli taxpayer, rightfully, deserves.

ibrodsky

11-05-2002, 06:10 AM

NewsGuy,

You know much more about Israel's internal politics than I do, but I think the situation is not so bleak.

Netanyahu is not only Israel's best choice to lead the fight against terrorism, he is the world's best choice to lead the fight against terrorism. No leader has focused on this problem for as long as Netanyahu. No leader has looked at the ideology and infrastructure behind terrorism in as honest and straightforward a manner.

Israel's democracy may be flawed as you suggest -- Netanyahu certainly agrees with you. But at this juncture in history what Israel needs is a bold and courageous leader capable of leading Israel to victory over Islamist and Arab terrorists rather than fine-tuning the budget or improving the education system.

Confronted with an existential threat, I don't see how Israel's many small parties can afford to subvert Netanyahu. Clearly, Labor has acted to subvert national unity at a dangerous moment, but will this help them gain in a general election? I think not.

I think Sharon is an excellent leader, but I have long feared he is compromised by the slanderous accusations of Palestinians and Israel's left. I believe Sharon has acted with restraint partly in an effort to shake off baseless charges that he is an extremist and (more preposterously) a "war criminal." To Palestinian terrorists, 15-year old Israeli girls might as well be called "war criminals"; the evil terrorists have likewise proclaimed the death sentence for them.

Netanyahu understands that terrorism can only be stopped by defeating the states that harbor, support, and glorify it. Netanyahu has repeatedly said Arafat must go, and if Netanyahu becomes PM I don't see how he can not act in the way he has advised Barak and Sharon.

Perhaps you can tell us to what extent the PM is impowered to unilaterally make crucial military and security decisions. My impression is that Sharon voluntarily submitted to the majority of his cabinet. Cabinets in other countries generally play an advisory role.

I would love to see Netanyahu's economic policies implemented. But what Israel needs most right now is a leader who can lead to victory. All other considerations are secondary. It wouldn't be so bad if Netanyahu came just in time to steer the ship of state to safety -- and departed once that crucial task was completed.

NewsGuy

11-05-2002, 02:24 PM

ibrodsky, I agree with you on most all your points.

Netanyahu has a clear vision, because he is guided by the principles of Zionism and preservation of the Jewish people.

Confronted with an existential threat, I don't see how Israel's many small parties can afford to subvert Netanyahu.

That's the amazing thing about Israel's political parties: They will consistently cut off their nose to spite their face.

Their pettiness and infighting is overwhelming. I've read some Israeli analysts describe the country as one which "eats its politicians alive."

Of course Israel now needs a stable government and unity in the face of terrorism and economic hardship, but this will not stop the smaller parties from demanding a pound of flesh from the PM. I've read reports in the past week that say Shas has demanded a $.5 Billion shekel package to guarantee their cooperation, while Moledet and the Russian parties demanded equally impossible concessions.

To the credit of the Russian parties, though, they understand the big picture and have never acted to actually bring down the government. Still, as for cooperation in joining the government, that's another story.

Israel's smaller parties have historically acted to hand a victory by default to an extreme Leftist coalition led by Meretz, Labour and the Arab parties rather than to compromise on most anything.

And what are these demands set by the smaller parties that might be partners in the Sharon government?

1. Moledet wants no limits whatsoever on settlements, even those few caravans that would require an entire IDF battalion to surround the settlement 24 hours a day in order to secure it. They demand the ouster of Arafat and the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority, bringing back a permanent IDF presence in the Palestinian areas, including civil administration.

2. The Russian parties want billions for housing and a host of social benefits for immigrants.

3. The religious parties want to permanently exempt their children from military service, and they want billions in welfare payments for large families.

4. Shas wants billions for funding its own religious schools and social programs, as well as for creating cushy job for its unemployed party members.

True, some of these are fine requests in times of economic prosperity, but these days, there simply is nowhere to raise the money from. Already, taxation of the wealthy is at an all-time high and the country is in the midst of a major recession.

Rather than waiting it out till the economy improves, the parties are, as usual, expecting the PM to go to America to beg to sink even further into foreign debt.

For this, the smaller parties are willing to let the government go down the tubes. It's really amazing...

As for Netanyahu, time will tell if Israelis think that he has changed sufficiently to be able to manage a coalition better than he did the first time around. There's no question about his positions or wisdom, just about his ability to manage the self-interest groups. I hope that the answer will be 'yes,' but honestly I am skeptical about it.

L@mplighterM

11-05-2002, 02:45 PM

I think Netanyahu seems like a likeable sort of fellow and a good orator. When he was PM from 1996 to 1999 he had somewhere around three years to send Arafat packing but he didn?t.

I don?t dislike the man and I certainly think he has more political smarts than Sharon but I don?t think he?s the one that will end the terrorist attacks in Israel.

Having said that the best part about this election is that there?s a chance that Peres will be whittled down to size. At times I have felt that Peres has been a liability to any action that Sharon might have taken.

The various contenders should spell out precisely what mandate they intend to follow if elected and be forced to stick to them.

NewsGuy

11-05-2002, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
The various contenders should spell out precisely what mandate they intend to follow if elected and be forced to stick to them.

Amen to that... :)

alexbmn

11-05-2002, 08:17 PM

Nataniahu is nothing to look forward to either.Despite his promises, in 1998 he signed the Wye River accords which gave Arabs, I think, 40 % more territory.Sharon is a joke, there i said it.He agrees to the US' roadmap towards a Palestinian state,he agrees to transfer 500 million dollars to the PA,he doesnt take decisive measures against terrorism,meaning he leaves Arafat in Ramalla and Hamas alive and well in Gaza..So far its 646 and counting. Israel is in deeeeep Sheeeet.

elik

11-06-2002, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by alexbmn
Nataniahu is nothing to look forward to either. Despite his promises, in 1998 he signed the Wye River accords which gave Arabs, I think, 40 % more territory.
It was only 13%, and he had that mutuality principle which said:
"If they give, they will get. If they don't give, they won't get" (Sounds a lot better in Hebrew).
Anyway, the point was that if the PLO doesn't do its part of the agreements, Israel won't give away the territories.
And indeed, because of the terror, only 2% were given were given away during Netanyahu's time.

Originally posted by alexbmn
Sharon is a joke, there i said it. He agrees to the US' roadmap towards a Palestinian state,he agrees to transfer 500 million dollars to the PA,he doesnt take decisive measures against terrorism, meaning he leaves Arafat in Ramalla and Hamas alive and well in Gaza..So far its 646 and counting. Israel is in deeeeep Sheeeet.
Sooo right! That's why it so important to support Netanyahu in the internal elections of the Likud, in three weeks.

shoshannah

11-06-2002, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by ibrodsky
But what Israel needs most right now is a leader who can lead to victory. All other considerations are secondary. It wouldn't be so bad if Netanyahu came just in time to steer the ship of state to safety -- and departed once that crucial task was completed.

Frankly, I doubt any of the current politicians can "lead to victory", simply since the situatuation is too complex to have a simple "vicroty".

More then that: I doubt any of the politicians will behave in drasticly diffrent matter when it comes to the PA.

At the moment, the problems we find here the most pressing (and the most neglected) are the economic and social problems. For years, they have been pushed aside "until the security situation improves"- and now they are starting to explode.

Since I dubt any real progress will be achived in the near future with the PA, IMO we should focus these elections on the social economic issues. Otherwise, we are very liable to end up with both the domestic and the security fronts stuck.

Saying that, I still have no idea to who I am going to vote for :-(

ibrodsky

11-06-2002, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by shoshannah

At the moment, the problems we find here the most pressing (and the most neglected) are the economic and social problems. For years, they have been pushed aside "until the security situation improves"- and now they are starting to explode.

But those problems have greatly intensified due to the infantifada which has, for example, virtually destroyed Israel's tourism industry.

I disagree with everyone (except elik) re: Netanyahu. He has written at least two books on terrorism. He has been speaking all over the US, testifying before Congress, etc. on the topic. He has a clear understanding of how Islamists think and operate and what to do about it.

I think when he was PM the first time it was a very different situation. And we must not forget that the Clinton administration targeted him for removal -- for being what they considered an obstacle to peace -- in an unprecedented effort at meddling in another country's elections.

Unlike Sharon, who has been slandered and does not speak English very well, no one in the West has managed to so thoroughly discredit Netanyahu. He not only speaks excellent English, he understands American audiences.

And unlike Sharon I think it would be much harder for the US and Europe to criticize his military responses. I think he is much more capable than Sharon of putting people to shame who say Israel must either appease terrorists or limit itself to purely defensive measures.

I also don't agree this is a situation that transcends good leadership. Every historical moment is ripe for a good leader -- particularly when there is conflict.

The civilized world needs a leader who isn't afraid to say we must go after the leaders who support and encourage terrorism. The civilized world needs a leader who is not afraid to say exactly who the enemy is. And we need someone who can really drive the points home to people all over the West (e.g., "Arafatistan," terrorists are not suspended in mid air," and "unlike the Soviet Union, which pursued an irrational goal rationally, Islamic terrorists pursue an irrational goal irrationally).

I think Netanyahu would respond to major terrorist attacks in a more dramatic and forceful, and therefore deterrent, manner.

minusthejihad

11-06-2002, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by ibrodsky
But those problems have greatly intensified due to the infantifada which has, for example, virtually destroyed Israel's tourism industry.

I disagree with everyone re: Netanyahu. He has written at least two books on terrorism. He has been speaking all over the US, testifying before Congress, etc. on the topic. He has a clear understanding of how Islamists think and operate and what to do about it.

I think when he was PM the first time it was a very different situation. And we must not forget that the Clinton administration targeted him for removal -- for being what they considered an obstacle to peace -- in an unprecedented effort at meddling in another country's elections.

Unlike Sharon, who has been slandered and does not speak English very well, no one in the West has managed to so thoroughly discredit Netanyahu. He not only speaks excellent English, he understands American audiences.

And unlike Sharon I think it would be much harder for the US and Europe to criticize his military responses. I think he is much more capable than Sharon of putting people to shame who say Israel must either appease terrorists or limit itself to purely defensive measures.

I also don't agree this is a situation that transcends good leadership. Every historical moment is ripe for a good leader -- particularly when there is conflict.

The civilized world needs a leader who isn't afraid to say we must go after the leaders who support and encourage terrorism. The civilized world needs a leader who is not afraid to say exactly who the enemy is. And we need someone who can really drive the points home to people all over the West (e.g., "Arafatistan," terrorists are not suspended in mid air," and "unlike the Soviet Union, which pursued an irrational goal rationally, Islamic terrorists pursue an irrational goal irrationally).

I think Netanyahu would respond to major terrorist attacks in a more dramatic and forceful, and therefore deterrent, manner.

Another great Netanyahu quote goes something like this:

"The only difference between Arafat and Osama Bin Laden, is that Arafat has great PR and we know where he is."

ibrodsky

11-06-2002, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by elik
It was only 13%, and he had that mutuality principle which said:
"If they give, they will get. If they don't give, they won't get" (Sounds a lot better in Hebrew).
Anyway, the point was that if the PLO doesn't do its part of the agreements, Israel won't give away the territories.
And indeed, because of the terror, only 2% were given were given away during Netanyahu's time.

Sooo right! That's why it so important to support Netanyahu in the internal elections of the Likud, in three weeks.

Elik, welcome to IsraelForum.

I think you are absolutely right about Netanyahu.

ibrodsky

11-06-2002, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by minusthejihad
Another great Netanyahu quote goes something like this:

"The only difference between Arafat and Osama Bin Laden, is that Arafat has great PR and we know where he is."

Yes, I think you are combining two of Netanyahu's comments about Arafat.

"The only difference between Arafat and bin Laden is we know where Arafat is." :D

"Arafat is Osama bin Laden with good PR." :D

ibrodsky

11-06-2002, 04:03 PM

Jerusalem Post:

Netanyahu on Tuesday reiterated his view that Arafat should be expelled. He also gave an official voice to recent Israeli media speculation that such a time could come during a US strike against Iraq.

"I think the most appropriate time (to exile Arafat) will be when Saddam Hussein is thrown out," Netanyahu told Israeli television. "I think that will be possible."

The comments came before Netanyahu was sworn in as foreign minister.

Responding to Netanyahu, Arafat said Wednesday: "No one can deport me from my homeland ... They have to remember that they are dealing with Yasser Arafat."

alexbmn

11-06-2002, 04:36 PM

yes the self titled "General Arafat".

minusthejihad

11-06-2002, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Yes, I think you are combining two of Netanyahu's comments about Arafat.

"The only difference between Arafat and bin Laden is we know where Arafat is." :D

"Arafat is Osama bin Laden with good PR." :D

Yep. Exactly.

NewsGuy

11-06-2002, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Jerusalem Post:

Netanyahu on Tuesday reiterated his view that Arafat should be expelled. He also gave an official voice to recent Israeli media speculation that such a time could come during a US strike against Iraq.

"I think the most appropriate time (to exile Arafat) will be when Saddam Hussein is thrown out," Netanyahu told Israeli television. "I think that will be possible."

Well said.

The only thing I regret is that Bibi is still talking about "expelling" Arafat rather than finally disposing of him.

shoshannah

11-06-2002, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by ibrodsky
But those problems have greatly intensified due to the infantifada which has, for example, virtually destroyed Israel's tourism industry.

True that the terror intensified things. But it was not the only intensifing factor here. Three other majors ones are:
* Extra "special" found given to the Ulthra Orthodox (not to mention the whole mess the "Tal commitie" attempted, and failed, to resolve).
* Out of proportion money given to the settelments (not counting security expenses), including major financial bonuses for people who move there or live there.
* cutting of the social net given to the weaker parts of the socitiy.

I don't think Netanyahu will solve these problems- after all, last time round, he was more then happy to gove the Ultra Orthodox (which by and large do not work) and the settelements more money.

The PA did not cause these social problems- therefore, "Peace" is not the "silver bullete" that will solve them. On the other hand, dealing with these problems will make us in a much better position to deal with the PA.

I disagree with everyone (except elik) re: Netanyahu. He has written at least two books on terrorism. He has been speaking all over the US, testifying before Congress, etc. on the topic. He has a clear understanding of how Islamists think and operate and what to do about it.

Perhaps. I am not so sure about that (yes, he is very smooth talking. That doesn't make him an expert). At any rate, even he is saying these days that "vicroty" is unlikely in the near future.

Speaking of such: what whould you consider a vicroty?

Unlike Sharon, who has been slandered and does not speak English very well, no one in the West has managed to so thoroughly discredit Netanyahu. He not only speaks excellent English, he understands American audiences.

And unlike Sharon I think it would be much harder for the US and Europe to criticize his military responses. I think he is much more capable than Sharon of putting people to shame who say Israel must either appease terrorists or limit itself to purely defensive measures.

And that is exactly why he can make a great FM. Yet this does not make him a good PM (and as he proved last round, he was not).

I think Netanyahu would respond to major terrorist attacks in a more dramatic and forceful, and therefore deterrent, manner.

I dubt it. and I am not the only one. See for example:
http://www.haayal.co.il/story.php3?id=633

alexbmn

11-06-2002, 10:16 PM

but money was always given to the ultra orthodox and the settlements always received their share but prior to the intifada the economy was in a good shape,no?

ibrodsky

11-07-2002, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by shoshannah
True that the terror intensified things. But it was not the only intensifing factor here. Three other majors ones are:
* Extra "special" found given to the Ulthra Orthodox (not to mention the whole mess the "Tal commitie" attempted, and failed, to resolve).
* Out of proportion money given to the settelments (not counting security expenses), including major financial bonuses for people who move there or live there.
* cutting of the social net given to the weaker parts of the socitiy.

You may be right about the first point. On the second, I must point out that no Arab country showed any interest in a compromise solution until Israel began building settlements. On the third, I think tax-funded social safety nets are a terrible idea.

I don't think Netanyahu will solve these problems- after all, last time round, he was more then happy to gove the Ultra Orthodox (which by and large do not work) and the settelements more money.

As long as the Arab world remains determined to destroy Israel, these are probably wise policies.

The PA did not cause these social problems- therefore, "Peace" is not the "silver bullete" that will solve them. On the other hand, dealing with these problems will make us in a much better position to deal with the PA.

The PA has obviously caused terrible problems for both Israelis and Palestinians. I don't know how you could think Israel's economy and social fabric is immune to mass murder attacks.

Perhaps. I am not so sure about that (yes, he is very smooth talking. That doesn't make him an expert). At any rate, even he is saying these days that "vicroty" is unlikely in the near future.

Try reading his books on terrorism. He is an expert. He also produced at least one conference on terrorism that was held in the US and attended by a number of our leaders.

Speaking of such: what whould you consider a vicroty?

The cessation of all terrorist attacks on Israelis, and realization by Palestinians that violence will hurt them more than it will help them.

And that is exactly why he can make a great FM. Yet this does not make him a good PM (and as he proved last round, he was not).

I'm not at all convinced. Who, if anyone, do you think would make a good PM?

I dubt it. and I am not the only one. See for example:
http://www.haayal.co.il/story.php3?id=633

The measure of truth is not popularity.

L@mplighterM

11-07-2002, 12:56 PM

Arafat should never have been brought back from exile but of course thatâ€™s spilt milk now. Thereâ€™s one thing that politicians have taught me and that is talk is cheap. Promise the moon and deliver nothing.

Iâ€™m going to do this and that and in the end they end up following their own path. Accountability to the voters is woefully lacking in many instances.

I think that Israel needs new fresh blood infused into the upcoming election that of course will not happen.

Arafat should have a quick trial and a bullet (not necessarily in that order) between his eyes thatâ€™s what he deserves. Netanyahu wants to expel Arafat with all his billions so he can live happily ever after in exile. Next time Peres might get elected and allow Arafat to return. A revolving door exile.

Although Sharon initially showed weakness he eventually responded in a manner that should have been undertaken years ago.

I would like to see a DMZ (with fences, electronic surveillance and mines) being established between Israel and the Palestinians. Draw the borders so that the settlements end up being within Israel. Start constructing the Great Wall immediately!

No Arab or Muslim should be allowed into Israel to work! Never again!

NewsGuy

11-07-2002, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by shoshannah
http://www.haayal.co.il/story.php3?id=633

Very high-quality site.

Too bad it has no English section for more of our members to enjoy.

alexbmn

11-07-2002, 08:25 PM

you know Hebrew Newsguy? Anyway I read Nataniahu's recent interview in Jpost.Absolutely agree with everything.(very different from the Sharon sukkot interview,which was quite sad)
Now if only he would stick to his promises if elected,then there hope on the horizon.

NewsGuy

11-09-2002, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by alexbmn
you know Hebrew Newsguy? Anyway I read Nataniahu's recent interview in Jpost.Absolutely agree with everything.(very different from the Sharon sukkot interview,which was quite sad)
Now if only he would stick to his promises if elected,then there hope on the horizon.

Yes, I scan the Hebrew newspapers online daily.

I also agree with Netanyahu's positions and like him very much as a spokesperson for the American and European press.

cerulean

11-10-2002, 09:35 PM

Is anyone scanning European editorials to see their response to Netanyahu?

jcsd

11-11-2002, 07:13 AM

Netanyahu is not viewed particularly favourably in Europe, he is seen as an extremist. However he may get a better response than Sharon, who has had the massacre in Lebanon and the visit to the Temple Mount hanging over his head.

cerulean

11-11-2002, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by jcsd
Netanyahu is not viewed particularly favourably in Europe, he is seen as an extremist. However he may get a better response than Sharon, who has had the massacre in Lebanon and the visit to the Temple Mount hanging over his head.

Which just goes to show the wilful non-understanding of the European press.

Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount consisted of a ten-minute walk, preapproved in advance by the Palestinian Authority. How grimly laughable to use this event against Sharon, although it is over and over again.

The Sabra-Shatilla killings in Lebanon were carried out by Lebanese Phalangists as revenge for various massacres they had endured. Sharon was not involved, nor responsible.

jcsd

11-11-2002, 07:38 AM

Sharon was found by the Israeli government itself to bear indirect but personal responsibilty for the massacre and was barred from holding high office for several years because of this. This would be enough to finish a politicians career in most EU countries.

The temple mount debacle was what sparked the current intifada off, and it brings into question Ariel Sharons judgement and/or commitment to ending the violence.

Mediocrates

11-11-2002, 08:43 AM

And this has to do with Bibi, how?

jcsd

11-11-2002, 08:49 AM

It's about public perception, I was saying that the negative foreign perception of Sharon from the incidents above do Israel no good and despite the fact that Netanyahu is seen as holding very extreme views by the outside world, he may be able to illicit a better foreign response as he does not have those incidents hanging over him.

Mediocrates

11-11-2002, 09:03 AM

As opposed to whom? Sadly for Israelis they would deal with anyone but Arafat but you in turn would deal with no one at all.

jcsd

11-11-2002, 11:11 AM

Because of the way he has behavred most people don't think that Sharon wants peace and the noises that Netanhayu has been making (i.e no Palestinian state-ever, but maybe autonomy) his commitment must be doubted.

Peres has a very good international standing, he is a Nobel peace prize winner and is automatically associated with Rabin who is seen as a matyr to the cause of peace. He also is much more articulate and statesman-like than Netanhayu or Sharon. Witnessing him on BBC World's "Hard Talk", he came across as very intelligent whereas Netanhayu on "Newsnight" did not give me that impression (of course this is only perception).

Many people outside Israel can't understand Israel's wish to get rid of Arafat, he is by far the most moderate leader that could hope to gain widespread support among the Palestinians. Getting rid of him would only allow a hardliner to step into his shoes.

minusthejihad

11-11-2002, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by jcsd
Because of the way he has behavred most people don't think that Sharon wants peace and the noises that Netanhayu has been making (i.e no Palestinian state-ever, but maybe autonomy) his commitment must be doubted.

Peres has a very good international standing, he is a Nobel peace prize winner and is automatically associated with Rabin who is seen as a matyr to the cause of peace. He also is much more articulate and statesman-like than Netanhayu or Sharon. Witnessing him on BBC World's "Hard Talk", he came across as very intelligent whereas Netanhayu on "Newsnight" did not give me that impression (of course this is only perception).

Many people outside Israel can't understand Israel's wish to get rid of Arafat, he is by far the most moderate leader that could hope to gain widespread support among the Palestinians. Getting rid of him would only allow a hardliner to step into his shoes.

I love how you seem to know what everyone else in the world thinks. Such as Arafat, I think any intelligent person in this world sees Arafat as the Father of Modern Terrorism and that calling him moderate when he has been DIRECTLY linked to terrorism (unlike Sharon's INDIRECT link to a Christian Millitia' bidings) is at best good for a chuckle.

I've heard Netanyahu and Peres talk, and from a PR and debate perspective I'd take Netanyahu over Peres any day of the week.

And lastly, please do NOT refer to any dead Jews as Martyrs. Let that term only be used for sick, psychopathic homicide bombers, OK?

jcsd

11-11-2002, 11:35 AM

Well I read most of the British and some European papers, so I can only gather my opinion on support for the different politicans from them, but papers are generally a reflection of their readers views.

I certainly think Peres would be able to generate much better PR for Israel (particularly inside Europe) than either Netanhayu or Sharon.

Arafat does have a terrorist past and this is indeniable (calling him the father of modern terrorism is overstating this though), but there is no real indication that he has been involved for several decades and has become much more moderate. But the point is that by getting rid of him Israel would be cutting off it's nose to spite it's face i.e. they would be just either be dealing with someone even more hardline or if they tried to impose a leader -a moderate with no backing from the Palestinian population or the different factions.

minusthejihad

11-11-2002, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by jcsd
Well I read most of the British and some European papers, so I can only gather my opinion on support for the different politicans from them, but papers are generally a reflection of their readers views.

I certainly think Peres would be able to generate much better PR for Israel (particularly inside Europe) than either Netanhayu or Sharon.

Arafat does have a terrorist past and this is indeniable (calling him the father of modern terrorism is overstating this though), but there is no real indication that he has been involved for several decades and has become much more moderate. But the point is that by getting rid of him Israel would be cutting off it's nose to spite it's face i.e. they would be just either be dealing with someone even more hardline or if they tried to impose a leader -a moderate with no backing from the Palestinian population or the different factions.

Fortunately, the people of Israel, their families and supporters here in the US understand that their security is FAR more important than what a bunch of leftist socialists in Europe think.

Mediocrates

11-11-2002, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by jcsd
I certainly think Peres would be able to generate much better PR for Israel (particularly inside Europe) than either Netanhayu or Sharon.

But he's been trying to do that job for several years and has been particularly successful at it. Which is suppose why he is so welcomed. Peres has a critical failing, all other things aside. And that failing is pride. Peres never used his own ministry and preferred instead to run the entire foreign policy apparatus out of his personal Rolodex. And the rest of the country I think suffered for it. For while he may be an intelligent, literate, hardworking sincere man he is in the end largely ineffective.

Arafat does have a terrorist past and this is indeniable (calling him the father of modern terrorism is overstating this though),

Personally involved in the Munich massacre. Personally involved in the murder of two US diplomats in Afrrica. Personally involved in hundreds of deaths. OK maybe not the father of modern terrorism but he is certainly the apotheosis of it.

but there is no real indication that he has been involved for several decades

See above.

But the point is that by getting rid of him Israel would be cutting off it's nose to spite it's face i.e. they would be just either be dealing with someone even more hardline or if they tried to impose a leader -a moderate with no backing from the Palestinian population or the different factions.

This is self serving nonsense. A truest sign of tyranny is NO succession plan. The fact that he's murdered or exiled all contenders says nothing about moderation or who the Israelis can and should deal with. We've already established he's a murderer. And a tyrant. And a thug. No one. Literally. No One. Could be worse. You think that's possible? Nope. Not possible. Anyone else might be more vocal to the destruction of Israel but no one and let me stress this NO ONE could be worse. We've coupled murder with tyranny and if you watch him you'l discover paranoia, a self created myth of himself, a complete disconnection from his own people and drive to feed only the myth of Arafat (for God's sake he gave himself the name of the one of the most mystical aspects of the Hajj).

fischman

11-27-2002, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by ibrodsky
NewsGuy,
Perhaps you can tell us to what extent the PM is impowered to unilaterally make crucial military and security decisions. My impression is that Sharon voluntarily submitted to the majority of his cabinet. Cabinets in other countries generally play an advisory role.

I think a major obstacle in Israel's war on terrorism is it's parliment government system. The majority never rules in Israel. Any party in the parliment can be the deciding factor in dissolving a coalition government. Any prime minister is required to keep an always fragile coalition government together to fulfill his term. That is why not a single prime minister completed his term from the past 3 elections. If a PM upsets part of his coalition, a no confidence vote is held, and new elections are called. It doesn't take much to upset the right, the left, and the religious parties. Many times, the decisions to call for new elections are based on non-existential threats, and just internal politics and bickering. It is a dumb system, and it lets arafat stay in power while Israeli leaders are tossed around like rag dolls. Everytime arafat stays in power and an Israeli prime minister loses his, arafat wins. If Israel wants to truly fight the threats against them, they need to set up a congressional government modelled after the US and not Britain. Laws need to be put in place so that government leaders can't be tossed out over internal politics. An impeachment should be the only way to remove a leader, and a 2/3 majority vote should be necessary to end a minister's term prematurely.

With that said, I don't see it happening in Israel anytime soon. There are way too many political parties in Israel, and they would all lose their power over the government. I think a house and senate could be arranged to satisfy the needs of the multi party system in Israel, but I still don't see it happening.

fischman

11-27-2002, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by jcsd
Arafat does have a terrorist past and this is indeniable (calling him the father of modern terrorism is overstating this though), but there is no real indication that he has been involved for several decades and has become much more moderate. But the point is that by getting rid of him Israel would be cutting off it's nose to spite it's face i.e. they would be just either be dealing with someone even more hardline or if they tried to impose a leader -a moderate with no backing from the Palestinian population or the different factions.

I completely disagree with you. First of all, your premise that arafat has not been invloved in terrorism for several decades is not only naive, it is completely untrue. I have irrefutable evidence that arafat is indeed and whole-heartedly involved in terrorism, but I'll get to that at the end of this post.

Assuming arafat is part of the problem and not the solution, why wouldn't Israel get rid of him? When the world fought against Hitler, nobody was saying ...
"Let's not fight Hitler because we don't know who will succeed him"
The world destroyed his regime, and then worried about rebuilding Germany.

Israel must do the same. It must first destroy the terrorist networks in its country and then worry about rebuilding the Palestinian infrustructures.

As for proof, I don't really know where to start because there is just soooo much, but here you go.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0lk50
Arafat approves the employment of terrorists in his security forces.

As you know all Palestinian media is directly controlled by arafat himself. If you truly believe there is no evidence linking him to terrorism, what do you think of the following ...
This is a truly heart wrenching video of a 3 year old little girl being brainwashed with terrorist garbage.
http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=realimpact/memri/memri_10-30-02_01.rm
this is a religous leader appointed by arafat ...
http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=realimpact/memri/memri_10-30-02_03.rm&screensize=double

If that's not enough, and you really feel like reading, this is the "Arafat file" from Israel's ministry of foreign affairs. This webpage has a copies of documents seized from arafat's offices during operation defensive shield.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0lom0

Here are some quotes from the arafat file...
According to the captured documents, at the head of the pyramid is Yasser Arafat, the leader of the Fatah, in all its various pseudonyms and apparatuses (Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Tanzim). One of the documents, which concerns a request to aid detained or wanted terrorists (belonging to the Fatah and the Palestinian security apparatuses) is addressed by the Fatah and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to Yasser Arafat personally.

Anti-Tank Weapon Systems Banned by International Agreements which were Captured in the Mukata'a Compound in Ramallah
(here is an image of the antitank systems found in arafat's compound. If these are not terrorist related, ask yourself why arafat needs antitiank systems in his political offices)
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAJ0acw0

The Allocation of Prohibited Arms from PA Offices to its Forces
The document captured by the IDF in the offices of the Financial Directorate in the Mukata'a in Ramallah is handwritten on paper of the PA - The General Security Financial Directorate of the Northern Districts ("The West Bank"). The following is a translation of the document:
Date: 18 November 2001
I, Mukadem (Lt. Colonel) Abd Al-Latif Abd Al Rahim have received the following items from the Financial Directorate:
R.B.G.-7 bombs - 20 only.
B-7 launcher propellant charge - 7 only.
And thus I am the undersigned - Mukadem Abd Al Latif Naji.

If this doesn't prove it to you, I have more. Just let me know if you need more evidence and I'll supply it.

jcsd

11-28-2002, 09:08 AM

Quite frankly I do not trust the mfa to give a balanced and considered report and after operation defensive shield most of the findings of that report were discounted outside Israel as fabrications.

Also I fail to see, how an anti-tank weapon systems could be seen to be definitely for a terroristic purpose, as they're primary purpose is obviously used to attack tanks which are legitimate military targets.

Mediocrates

11-28-2002, 09:16 AM

Today an anti tank rocket was used in terrorist attacks.

jcsd

11-28-2002, 09:19 AM

True (well I don't know for sure but I'm willing to believe you), but possesion of one does not show terroristic intent. Yasser Arafats compound has been attacked several times by tanks so it is by no means a stretch of the imagination to think he may own one to defend against these.

Mediocrates

11-28-2002, 09:25 AM

They have never been used (to my knowledge) by the PA against IDF armor. The PA style is to fashion an anti tank landmine. One such design was used against 1 or 2 Merkava 3's earlier this year.

NewsGuy

11-28-2002, 09:33 AM

jcsd

11-28-2002, 09:35 AM

But it still is not great evidence of direct involvment in terrorism.

jcsd

11-28-2002, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Nonsense.

Let's see you come up with a single specific "fabrication".

Well it was entirely based on papers supposedly captured at Arafats compound, but as I said before outside Israel they were no taken seriously as the Israeli governments wish to get rid of Arafat is well known and it's trustworthyness when pursuing political ends is questionable.

danholo

11-28-2002, 09:48 AM

Why would they have "anti-tank" missiles against IDF armor, since they would do nothing to even hurt the Israeli tanks?

NewsGuy

11-28-2002, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by jcsd
Well it was entirely based on papers supposedly captured at Arafats compound, but as I said before outside Israel they were no taken seriously as the Israeli governments wish to get rid of Arafat is well known and it's trustworthyness when pursuing political ends is questionable.

One second, the IDF did find incriminating papers at Arafat's compound and transferred those documents to Washington for inspection. In fact, after seeing those papers, the administration's attitude towards the Palestinians did change.

As for Europeans denying basic facts of Arafat's terrorism involvement, that is another matter. Basically, the Europeans are scared that it will be uncovered that their money is being used precisely to finance suicide bombings and other terrorism, as Arafat's documents indicate. That is why in the past few weeks the Europeans refused to conduct an investigation of their own into Arafat's spending of European funds, even though their own sources have uncovered EU money spent on terrorism. Same thing the MFA reported.

But the European hypocrisy and fear of the truth does not amount to "fabrications" on Israel's part.

The only fabrications here are your own about the Israeli MFA and I can see that you can't actually back up your claims at all.

I am David

11-28-2002, 11:07 AM

Let's just hope Netanyahu gets elected.

Isn't the elections like right now or something?

Newsguy can you still vote ? :p

NewsGuy

11-28-2002, 11:53 AM

Well, looks like Sharon won the Likud primaries and will go on to form a government in the upcoming elections.

I hope he keeps his promise to have Netanyahu continue as Foreign Minister and I hope Netanyahu accepts. The important thing now is to have enough of a majority in the next Knesset to be free of being brought down by the Leftist elements of Israeli politics.

richcrassus

11-28-2002, 07:32 PM

Some of you say that the jews in the USA dont understand whats going on in israel and stuff, than why are some jews in israel saying that there is a 'palestine' and that we should stop the 'occupation' etc.... even though we all know there is no occupation because its not there land, Jordan only gave the palestinians bargaining power over the WB in 73.
So why are some jewish israelies for the palestinian cause????
have they got some mental disease or what???
Do they truly believe that there is an accupation and a palestine or do they know what they are saying is rubbish but they have some other motive that drives them to talk like that???

fischman

11-29-2002, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by jcsd
Quite frankly I do not trust the mfa to give a balanced and considered report and after operation defensive shield most of the findings of that report were discounted outside Israel as fabrications.

Also I fail to see, how an anti-tank weapon systems could be seen to be definitely for a terroristic purpose, as they're primary purpose is obviously used to attack tanks which are legitimate military targets.

in reference to post:
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=35192#post35192

When I said "If this doesn't prove it to you, I have more. Just let me know if you need more evidence and I'll supply it." I was being rhetorical. I never thought in my wildest dreams that you would resort to the old argument of "nuh-uh, you're lying". How could I possibly argue with that? Quite frankly, I grew out of that debate style in grade school.

So let me be more specific. What would prove to you that Arafat is involved in terrorist activity?

First of all, I would like to say that those reports absolutely are not fabrications. There are documents seized with Arafat's own signature on them.

Second, you made no comment to the VIDEO evidence that I linked to in that post. Arafat, as the leader of a totalitarian regime, has full control over his cleric appointees and all media broadcast and printed within the Palestinian Authority. The video of the 3 year old girl being brainwashed was approved by arafat because that is the only way it could be aired. That was not sick enough to show you the man is involved in terrorist activity. Maybe he doesn't have a suicide belt strapped around his waist, but if he is training little girls at the age of 3 to become "Good muslims, who know who their enemies are", is that not terrorist activity. Not to mention the other video clip of his appointed cleric saying "What is needed now is clinging to Allah, and for the masses of (suicide bombers) martyrs to get ready to enter Paradise." Are you going to use the same argument as you used for the antitank systems found in Arafat's political offices. Are you going to tell me "Also I fail to see, how brainwashing a 3 year old into being a homicide/suicide bomber could be seen to be definitely for a terroristic purpose, as they're primary purpose is obviously used to attack tanks which are legitimate military targets."

(note: the antitank systems were in his office, not his police headquarters, or his security services, but the guy's office. If Bush had anti-tank systems in the oval office would you tell me they were for defense)

Third, why would you believe arafat over the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs? You yourself agreed that arafat was a terrorist a few decades ago. Why on earth would you believe that the MFA is lying while arafat is telling the truth? Now, don't just respond to this by saying Israel is lying because... Tell me what makes you think arafat is credible.

Fourth, I accepted your challenge to show arafat is indeed involved in terrorist activity. Your only response was to tell me my evidence is all lies. So I would like to extend a challenge to you. I challenge you to prove to me that the report on arafat from the Israeli ministry of Foreign Affairs is untrue. Show me any shred of evidence that the documents are forgeries. You do realize that when the documents were revealed to the US, and the CIA reviewed them, they accepted them as truth. But I'm sure you are just way more qualified than the CIA to uncover forged documents.

jcsd

11-29-2002, 04:46 AM

Evidence from an independant third party is what I ask.

minusthejihad

11-29-2002, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by jcsd
Evidence from an independant third party is what I ask.

There is no such thing. That is a typical arguement for someone who just lost a major debate. He just provided you tons of proof, but only because Jews had something to do with it, you call it subjective. How about Peace Now, Meretz Party, etc., are those not Jews? So when they say soemthiong against Israel, you rush to point out that they are "Jews too", yet when they are pro-Israel, you say, "Yes, but they're Jews". Typical.

You and that self-hater Takeo use the same poor debate tactics. The best part is that most people log on here to laugh at your pathetic arguements. You should go back to Urban75 or whatever, at least you would be dealing with debators of YOUR level - "the rubber and glue" committee.

jcsd

11-29-2002, 08:11 AM

No, the reason why I'm less than willing to trust the mfa is that they have a very strong vested interest and have been less than 100% trustworthy in the past.

I'm not taking a fringe view here either, most governments do not believe Arafat is directly involved in terrorism at this present time.

minusthejihad

11-29-2002, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by jcsd
No, the reason why I'm less than willing to trust the mfa is that they have a very strong vested interest and have been less than 100% trustworthy in the past.

I'm not taking a fringe view here either, most governments do not believe Arafat is directly involved in terrorism at this present time.

You talk out of your ARSE! What the hell do you know about other governments? You're just some European sap sitting in front of a computer excusing terrorism five minutes after 3 coordinated attacks against Jews happened. In my opinion you have 0 or no morals whatsoever and if someone like you talked this trash to my face, I would have knocked you out by now, you anti-semite.

I am David

11-29-2002, 08:23 AM

Newsguy you should allow deletion of posts.

Mediocrates

11-29-2002, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by jcsd
I'm not taking a fringe view here either, most governments do not believe Arafat is directly involved in terrorism at this present time.

But even a casual search will dredge up a long list of research, NGO's, lobbies, academics and lawyers that say otherwise. Governments make POLICY DECISIONS based on OTHER PEOPLE'S reasearch.

jcsd

11-29-2002, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by minusthejihad
You talk out of your ARSE! What the hell do you know about other governments? You're just some European sap sitting in front of a computer excusing terrorism five minutes after 3 coordinated attacks against Jews happened. In my opinion you have 0 or no morals whatsoever and if someone like you talked this trash to my face, I would have knocked you out by now, you anti-semite.

1. I'm not excusing terrorism, I am just sceptical that Yasser Arafat is directly involved in it at the moment.

2. I've made it pretty clear time and again that I condemn (particularly the recent attacks in Mombassa) terrorism WHOEVER is commiting it.

3. which is it 0 or no? you are wrong.

4. Threatening someone over the internet, especially when they're a whole continent away is the height of sadness.

5. Oh, I forgot having sympathy for the plight of the Palestians is virulent antisemitism.

jcsd

11-29-2002, 11:06 AM

Well show me these reports then. If there is truly damning evidence I haven't seen it yet.

fischman

11-29-2002, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by jcsd
Evidence from an independant third party is what I ask.

When you asked for an independant third party, I assume you mean anyone except for Israel. Most of the following evidence is not third party evidence, even better it is first party evidence from arafat and his appointees. After reading all of the following evidence I'm sure you would agree that all indications are that arafat is not involved in terrorism whatsoever. It is just an Israeli conspiracy to smear arafat's spotless reputation. It makes total sense, too. After all, it was Mossad that was behind the World Trade Center attacks, the Karine A affair, and the suicide bombings within Israel. Mossad is just slaughtering people to build world sympathy for Israel. It makes perfect sense. Or does it?

What do you have to say about all this ...

(1) When asked "who controls the intifada?" Sakhr Habash, a member of the Fatah's Central Committee, told PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida on 12/12/2000 the follwoing

"Since brother Arafat is busy with many various missions, authority was delegated to leaders in the field, who are on the lowest level of the organizational hierarchy. However, the leadership of the PA remained the source of authority, and it alone was the factor capable of leading the operations of the Intifada throughout the homeland. I can say for certain that brother Abu-Ammar(Yassir Arrafat's real name) is the ultimate authority for all operations, and whoever thinks otherwise, does not know what is going on--"

Note: not only is Habash a member of Fatah, a terrorist group headed by Arafat himself, but the above quote was printed in PA media which is directly controlled, monitored, and censored by arafat himself. If these are indeed lies, then arafat is lying about himself.

(2) When asked "Why aren't you releasing the Jihad warriors [Hamas and Islamic Jihad prisoners] from PA jails?" on an October 7, 2000 interview with Palestinian Authority (PA) Minister of Planning and International Cooperation Nabil Sha'ath to the ANN Channel, an Arabic language, London based, satellite TV channel Sha'ath replied

"Had it not been for the siege that is imposed on us and for the danger that Israel would try to assassinate or kidnap those people - we would have released them all. we protect them. ...the agreement with Israel states that any act of killing or injuring Israelis gives Israel the right to demand the perpetrator's extradition unless the PA tries them. Therefore their arrest and trial by us were always the necessary minimum to protect those people from being kidnapped, arrested, or assassinated by Israel."

[b]Note: Is harboring and defending terrorists considered terrorist activity?

(3) March 9, 2001, PA Communications Minister, 'Imad Al-Faluji, visited Lebanon and spoke at the 'Ein Al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp. In his speech Al-Faluji stated ...

This Intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat's return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton. [Arafat] remained steadfast and challenged [Clinton]. He rejected the American terms and he did it in the heart of the US

Note: Is planning an Intifada that consisted of attacks against civilians considered terrorist involvment?

(4) On June 24, 2001 on the eve of the Dolphinarium massacre in Tel Aviv, Arafat sent the following letter to the family of the suicide bomber. The letter was sent via the Palestinian Embassy in Jordan and signed by arafat himself. The following is a translation of the arabic letter ...

To the brothers, the family of Al-Hotary and the Noble People of Qalqilya,

With hearts that believe in Allah's will and predetermination, we have received the news about the martyrdom of the martyrâ€¦. Al-Hotary, the son of Palestine, whose noble soul ascended toâ€¦ in order to rest in Allah's Kingdom, together with the Prophets, the men of virtue, and the martyrs. The heroic martyrdom operation â€¦ who turned his body into bombs â€¦ the model of manhood and sacrifice for the sake of Allah and the homelandâ€¦

Note: Would singing praise of murdering terrorists be considered involovement in terrorist activies? Are these the words of a man that has not been involved in terrorism for decades?

Continued in next post ...

fischman

11-29-2002, 11:08 AM

(5) August 14, 2001, The Palestinian weekly, Al-Manar, published an article signed by "The Palestinian Center for Information Sources-Gaza", which stated that "serious thinking has began a while ago about obtaining biological weapons." Following are excerpts from the article, titled "Will We Reach the Option of Biological Deterrence?"

"Due to the seriously uneven balance of power in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and in light of the escalation of the racist aggression, which elevates to the level of a war declaration, by the Sharon government... the Palestinian side is required to use weapons of deterrence that will even the balance of power, at least on the field."

"While the human-bombs [meaning, suicide bombers] may be followed [and maybe stopped by] preventive measures...serious thinking has begun for a while about developing a Palestinian weapon of deterrence. This weapon terrifies the Israeli security apparatuses, from time to time, mainly because obtaining its primary components, whether biological or chemical, is possible without too much effort, let alone the fact that there are hundreds of experts who are capable of handling them and use them as weapons of deterrence, thus creating a balance of horror in the equation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."

"A few bombs or death-carrying devices will be enough, once they are deployed in secluded areas and directed at the Israeli water resources or the Israeli beaches, let alone the markets and the residential centers. [This will be carried out] without explosions, noise, blood, or pictures that are used to serve the Israeli propaganda. Anyone who is capable, with complete self-control, of turning his body into shrapnel and scattered organs, is also capable of carrying a small device that cannot be traced and throw it in the targeted location."

Note: Again, Al-Manar is a publication that is under arafat's direct control. Everything printed in Al-Manar is reviewed, monitored, and censored by arafat himself. Would the quest to obtain biological weapons be considered terrorist activity?

(6) August 22, 2001, Deputy Commander of "Force 17," Muhammad Dhamrah, [1] A.K.A, Abu Awdh in an interview with Al-Hayat [London, August 17, 2001]:

"...Independence will be realized only through sacrificing. We have prepared thousands, tens of thousands, martyrs in order to regain our land and for the return of the refugees. I derive my strength from this people, rather than from the security coordination or from promises made by the CIA. I feel safe, as many others do, among my people. I am not worried. I am very optimistic that victory will come."

"I promise that the number of shootings at the occupation will increase to 500 to 1,000 shooting per day... The Palestinians have trained themselves to attack the Israeli tanks and explode their bodies that will be loaded with a belt of explosives, as part of the preparations for a possible Israeli attack in the Palestinian territoriesâ€¦ The current Intifada differs from the previous one because it is armed and the Palestinians are fighting inside their territory and from it..."
...
"The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades was established in the first month of the Intifada by groups of Fateh who had been active in the first Intifada of 1987, and especially those who were imprisoned by the occupation and who carried out operations against the traitors. They were released when the Palestinian Authority moved into the West Bank and Gaza in 1994..."

"The activity of the 'Brigades' began with armed confrontations with the occupation soldiers in some places in the West Bank, and its establishment was officially announced on January 1, 2001, during the military parade in commemoration of the establishment of the Fateh movement. The 'Brigades' consider the killing of a Zionist settler near the West Bank village of Jalameh at the beginning of 2001 as its first operation."

"The 'Brigades' believes in the strategy of operating against the Israelis wherever they are. We believe in road-side explosives, armed confrontations, and sniper-shootings. The range for our operations is throughout occupied Palestine, but we do not carry out Martyrdom [meaning suicide] operations because we believe in the importance of protecting the lives of our Jihad-warriors, as much as possible..."

[i]Note: These comments were made by the Deputy Commander of Arafat's elite bodyguards, Force 17. Would creating a terrorist faction be considered involvement in terrorist activity? Would "operating against the Israelis wherever they are" be considered involvement in terrorist activity?

(7) On June 7, 2002, the Kuwaiti Al-Watan daily published the following report:

"Yesterday, Al-Watan received documents from private sources in the Cairo branch of an Arab bank showing that Yasser Arafat had deposited in his name $5.1 million into a personal account. According to sources, this is theft of Arab aid funds allocated to the Palestinians through an arrangement between Arafat and his Cairo office head Ramzi Khouri."

"The sources added that according to the documents, these funds were deposited in the personal accounts of President Arafat to cover some of the president's personal expenses, including the costs of his wife Suha and their daughter who live in Paris and Switzerland."

Note: In my earlier posts, you claimed that the CIA and the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs are not as credible as arafat. Do you still think Arafat is more credible than the CIA and ministry of foreign affairs?

(8) The Muslim Brotherhood organ in Jordan, Al-Sabil[1] published an interview with Mu'awiya Al-Masri, a Palestinian Legislative Council member from Nablus. In 1999, Al-Masri was one of 20 Palestinian Authority officials who signed the "Communique of 20" against corruption in the PA - an act which nearly cost him his life.[2] In the interview, Al-Masri revealed in great detail the level of corruption in the PA. There is too much corruption for me to quote, but read the entire interview here ...
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP40602

Note: Is arafat still more credible than the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs and the CIA?

Anyone with half a brain will read the above and agree that arafat is most definately invloved in terrorist activity. What do you think?

fischman

11-29-2002, 11:13 AM

fischman

11-29-2002, 11:17 AM

(5) August 14, 2001, The Palestinian weekly, Al-Manar, published an article signed by "The Palestinian Center for Information Sources-Gaza", which stated that "serious thinking has began a while ago about obtaining biological weapons." Following are excerpts from the article, titled "Will We Reach the Option of Biological Deterrence?"

"Due to the seriously uneven balance of power in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and in light of the escalation of the racist aggression, which elevates to the level of a war declaration, by the Sharon government... the Palestinian side is required to use weapons of deterrence that will even the balance of power, at least on the field."

"While the human-bombs [meaning, suicide bombers] may be followed [and maybe stopped by] preventive measures...serious thinking has begun for a while about developing a Palestinian weapon of deterrence. This weapon terrifies the Israeli security apparatuses, from time to time, mainly because obtaining its primary components, whether biological or chemical, is possible without too much effort, let alone the fact that there are hundreds of experts who are capable of handling them and use them as weapons of deterrence, thus creating a balance of horror in the equation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."

"A few bombs or death-carrying devices will be enough, once they are deployed in secluded areas and directed at the Israeli water resources or the Israeli beaches, let alone the markets and the residential centers. [This will be carried out] without explosions, noise, blood, or pictures that are used to serve the Israeli propaganda. Anyone who is capable, with complete self-control, of turning his body into shrapnel and scattered organs, is also capable of carrying a small device that cannot be traced and throw it in the targeted location."

Note: Again, Al-Manar is a publication that is under arafat's direct control. Everything printed in Al-Manar is reviewed, monitored, and censored by arafat himself. Would the quest to obtain biological weapons be considered terrorist activity?

(6) August 22, 2001, Deputy Commander of "Force 17," Muhammad Dhamrah, [1] A.K.A, Abu Awdh in an interview with Al-Hayat [London, August 17, 2001]:

"...Independence will be realized only through sacrificing. We have prepared thousands, tens of thousands, martyrs in order to regain our land and for the return of the refugees. I derive my strength from this people, rather than from the security coordination or from promises made by the CIA. I feel safe, as many others do, among my people. I am not worried. I am very optimistic that victory will come."

"I promise that the number of shootings at the occupation will increase to 500 to 1,000 shooting per day... The Palestinians have trained themselves to attack the Israeli tanks and explode their bodies that will be loaded with a belt of explosives, as part of the preparations for a possible Israeli attack in the Palestinian territoriesâ€¦ The current Intifada differs from the previous one because it is armed and the Palestinians are fighting inside their territory and from it..."
...
"The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades was established in the first month of the Intifada by groups of Fateh who had been active in the first Intifada of 1987, and especially those who were imprisoned by the occupation and who carried out operations against the traitors. They were released when the Palestinian Authority moved into the West Bank and Gaza in 1994..."

"The activity of the 'Brigades' began with armed confrontations with the occupation soldiers in some places in the West Bank, and its establishment was officially announced on January 1, 2001, during the military parade in commemoration of the establishment of the Fateh movement. The 'Brigades' consider the killing of a Zionist settler near the West Bank village of Jalameh at the beginning of 2001 as its first operation."

"The 'Brigades' believes in the strategy of operating against the Israelis wherever they are. We believe in road-side explosives, armed confrontations, and sniper-shootings. The range for our operations is throughout occupied Palestine, but we do not carry out Martyrdom [meaning suicide] operations because we believe in the importance of protecting the lives of our Jihad-warriors, as much as possible..."

[i]Note: These comments were made by the Deputy Commander of Arafat's elite bodyguards, Force 17. Would creating a terrorist faction be considered involvement in terrorist activity? Would "operating against the Israelis wherever they are" be considered involvement in terrorist activity?

(7) On June 7, 2002, the Kuwaiti Al-Watan daily published the following report:

"Yesterday, Al-Watan received documents from private sources in the Cairo branch of an Arab bank showing that Yasser Arafat had deposited in his name $5.1 million into a personal account. According to sources, this is theft of Arab aid funds allocated to the Palestinians through an arrangement between Arafat and his Cairo office head Ramzi Khouri."

"The sources added that according to the documents, these funds were deposited in the personal accounts of President Arafat to cover some of the president's personal expenses, including the costs of his wife Suha and their daughter who live in Paris and Switzerland."

Note: In my earlier posts, you claimed that the CIA and the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs are not as credible as arafat. Do you still think Arafat is more credible than the CIA and ministry of foreign affairs?

(8) The Muslim Brotherhood organ in Jordan, Al-Sabil[1] published an interview with Mu'awiya Al-Masri, a Palestinian Legislative Council member from Nablus. In 1999, Al-Masri was one of 20 Palestinian Authority officials who signed the "Communique of 20" against corruption in the PA - an act which nearly cost him his life.[2] In the interview, Al-Masri revealed in great detail the level of corruption in the PA. There is too much corruption for me to quote, but read the entire interview here ...
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP40602

Note: Is arafat still more credible than the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs and the CIA?

After reading all this anyone with half a brain would realize arafat is indeed at the least just involved in terrorist activity. What do you think?

fischman

12-03-2002, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by jcsd
No, the reason why I'm less than willing to trust the mfa is that they have a very strong vested interest and have been less than 100% trustworthy in the past.

I'm not taking a fringe view here either, most governments do not believe Arafat is directly involved in terrorism at this present time.

jcsd,

I'm not surprised that you haven't responded to my posts. I hope you have at least read them, and you now realize what a terrorist arafat really is. I am guessing by your silence that you agree.

jcsd

12-03-2002, 12:09 PM

No, Fischman you shouldn't take my silence as tacet agreement. You have not given any impartial evidence of a current direct link to Arafat and the current wave of suicide bombings. I am well aware that several Arafats associates are at some level involved in terrorism but you have failed to prove the direct link to Arafat.

fischman

12-03-2002, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by jcsd
No, Fischman you shouldn't take my silence as tacet agreement. You have not given any impartial evidence of a current direct link to Arafat and the current wave of suicide bombings. I am well aware that several Arafats associates are at some level involved in terrorism but you have failed to prove the direct link to Arafat.

I didn't give evidence of arafat's associates, I gave evidence pointing the finger at arafat and the infrastructures that he has created. Did you even bother reading my posts? Can you disprove any bit of evidence?

I can't understand how a rational person can realize that many of arafat's associates are involved in terrorism, yet at the same time say that has nothing to do with him. Would you also make the claim that Bin Laden is not a terrorist since he himself was not the Suicide Moron that flew the planes into the buildings?

Was it not enough that a member of his Fatah organization claimed that arafat "is the ultimate authority for all operations, and whoever thinks otherwise, does not know what is going on"

Are you one of the ones that does not know what is going on?

jcsd

12-03-2002, 12:53 PM

Alot of your evidence is irrelevant and you add clauses like 'anyone with half a brain should realize...', which rather impede serious discussion.

For example the points highlighted (8),(7), Arafat is corrupt, yes I know that, but it's not relevant to whether he's a terrorist.

Your definition of a 'terrorist' is just a 'naughty person'.

For example point (5), George Bush HAS biological weapons, Israel has undoubtably considered obtaining them and may actually have some.

(6) The al-Asqua Matyrs brigade has come in for strong criticism from Arafat and you fail to provide any linkage between Arafat and it's suicide bombing policy.

I could go on, but most of the other points are non-sequitors

Point (1) seems to be the only relevant one that you have posted and it is just not enough to dislodge the conflicting evidence.

ibrodsky

12-03-2002, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by jcsd

For example the points highlighted (8),(7), Arafat is corrupt, yes I know that, but it's not relevant to whether he's a terrorist.

Your definition of a 'terrorist' is just a 'naughty person'.

Yaser Arafat began his career as a terrorist on the frontlines. He has been known as the PLO's leader over the many years in which the PLO's position was the same as Hamas' today: "No negotiations, no Israel, and mass murder Jews."

Under Arafat's leadership, the PLO massacred Israeli athletes at the Olympics, pushed a wheelchair bound American Jew off a cruise ship, and led numerous other terrorist raids.

His position since the Oslo "Peace Process" has essentially been that there is one PR tactic for the western media, and another for domestic Arab consumption. During the current infantifada, Arafat called for a "million martyrs" for Jerusalem. He has also made the outrageous claim that there are no Jewish religious sites in Jerusalem (one of his favorite topics is the "Judaization of Jerusalem" which he talks about with all the passion of his mentor, the Nazi Mufti).

If you don't know what this all means, you are going out of your way to avoid realty.

minusthejihad

12-03-2002, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by jcsd

Point (1) seems to be the only relevant one that you have posted and it is just not enough to dislodge the conflicting evidence.

Conflicting Evidence? You mean there's actually an objective, respectable source that tried to prove otherwise?
I'd love to see that.

Fishman showed you over a page of evidence. I'd like to see that much effort on your part.

fischman

12-03-2002, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by jcsd
Alot of your evidence is irrelevant and you add clauses like 'anyone with half a brain should realize...', which rather impede serious discussion.
I don't see this as a serious discussion at all. I see this as me presenting undeniable evidence, and you attempting to discount it at any costs. I have come to the conclusion that you will defend arafat at any costs, and I pity you for putting so much faith in a terrorist.

For example the points highlighted (8),(7), Arafat is corrupt, yes I know that, but it's not relevant to whether he's a terrorist.

Why are you so quick to admit his corruption, yet you cannot be convinced in his terrorist activity?

Your definition of a 'terrorist' is just a 'naughty person'.

No! My definition of a terrorist is a person(usually part of a network) involved in any way in illegal and morally reprehensable acts to induce fear in civilians for political gain. Just because arafat is the leader of a terrorist network, does not make him any less of a terrorist. What is your definition, and how does arafat not fit into it?

For example point (5), George Bush HAS biological weapons, Israel has undoubtably considered obtaining them and may actually have some.

Did you even bother reading point (5)? Did you read this part ...

"While the human-bombs [meaning, suicide bombers] may be followed [and maybe stopped by] preventive measures...serious thinking has begun for a while about developing a Palestinian weapon of deterrence. This weapon terrifies the Israeli security apparatuses, from time to time, mainly because obtaining its primary components, whether biological or chemical, is possible without too much effort"

Is George Bush thinking of replacing his "human-bombs" with biological weapons to avoid Israel's "preventative measures"? How can you not equate that with terrorism? How can you turn a blind eye on him because his name is Arafat?

(6) The al-Asqua Matyrs brigade has come in for strong criticism from Arafat and you fail to provide any linkage between Arafat and it's suicide bombing policy.
Arafat says a lot of things in english and foreign languages under coersion. He has never criticised al-Aqsa Terrorists in arabic.

Regardless, I showed you documents signed by Arafat for the purchases of weapons and materials to supply al-Aqsa Terrorists for terrorist attacks against Israel. I can't for the life of me understand why you would take the side of a terrorist over the CIA and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (who have both authenticated the documents). You seem to believe that they are forgeries.

Point (1) seems to be the only relevant one that you have posted and it is just not enough to dislodge the conflicting evidence.
I am glad you can view one point without bias. What conflicting evidence would that be?