I believe that we can make our case against Saddam Hussein in terms of his violation of our agreement from the 1st War. However, Hussein's policies have not changed since Bush came to office. The connection between Hussein and terrorism is demonstrable through the PLO. We can move to a more multilateral position condemning those who resort to terrorism or who have a history of terrorism.

In this case I think we must back Israel's position that Arafat must be removed from the leadership of the PLO. His history of terrorism and his inability to conduct honest foreign policy has contributed greatly to the present cycle of horror that is ongoing in Israel.

Let's vocally back the ousting of this terrorist and appeal to the Palestinian people to present an honest broker as their leader. With this new leader, free of terrorism (or at least reasonably free) we should pledge support for an independent Palestinian state. If we help oust Arafat (the equal in many ways to Hussein) then we have leverage in pushing Israel to fast track independence for Palestine.

This would give our foreign policy more credibility. When we go after Hussein solely it looks like we are addressing a past grudge in the guise of waging war on terrorism.

How many ways is this wrong?

One terrorist at a time

--cheers

OK I pick bin Laden

Gee, I always thought the major terrorist in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was Ariel Sharon.

Even the current bunch of hypocrites who have hijacked the US government made an initial distinction that drew a line between freedom fighters and terrorists.

Indeed, I seem to remember Sharon thumbing his nose at our great leader when he demanded that Sharon's armies pull back from their re-occupation of the Palestinian lands.

Our abandonment of the Palestinian people (and remember the greatest violator of UN resolutions is Israel - but I guess some resolutions are more equal than others) is very much a part of the current problem. If this degenerate administration had even attempted to be fair-handed in its response to the conflict, our standing among the peoples of the middle east would have been much higher and our ability to broker an international response to the threat of global terrorism and the intransignce of Sadaam's Bathist party greatly enhanced.

Sharon's aims are genocidal - his aim an Israel that stretches from "the nile to the Euphrates"

Remember, although Arafat was condemned for comparing Sharon and his tactics to Hitler, the first regional figure to make that comparison was not a palestinian or an anti-zionist arab - it was David Ben-Gurion.

Goethe

Although Israel's hands are not clean, either in the current crisis, or the founding of the Israeli state, why don't you check your facts regarding the formation of the PLO, and the Egyptian, oops, I mean Palestinian Arafat.

If the previous degenerate administration had persuaded the criminal Arafat to accept the peace proposal, yes, maybe our standing would have been higher in the region. But that's OK, facts and logic never get in the way of some agendas.

Arafat is such a terrorist, that Jordan wouldn't establish a homeland for them in the pre-1967 West Bank, and in fact kicked them out the country.

Maybe when someone shows me a map of the Palestinian nation (that never existed), I'll be a little more sympathetic to fanatics who walk into a cafe and blow it up.

Contradictory statements? Is Arafat a freedom fighter? Why did he have to choose violence as an option? I keep getting anti-Semetic accusations of genocide on this site when I talk about Israel's foreign policy. Israel's policy in the face of enemies who have sworn to destroy her is hard line to be sure. I am no fan of Sharon either. But Arafat is a terrorist.


[QUOTE]Sharon's aims are genocidal - his aim an Israel that stretches from "the Nile to the Euphrates"
QUOTE]

I haven't seen the attempt by any Israeli government to try to systematically murder the Arab peoples throughout the whole region. That is simply a rant.

How do we distinguish between freedom fighters and terrorists. Are the one's the use the guns the way we like them freedom fighters? Or is it the choice of targets when a group decides it must resort to arms.

My choice for a starting definition of a terrorist is a person or group or state that chooses to directly target civilian non-combatants when engaging in acts of war.

The source is the long stated objective of the Revisionist wing of Zionism.

Ben-Gurion pleaded with Golda Mier and the then leadership at the time of the six day war to pull back to the earlier boundaries but he was ignored. He felt it was enough to demonstrate Israel's military strength but that any real progress in the territory required a sincere attempt to build trust with the NATIVE population.

You don't think that demoralising a people, depriving them of civil rights, occupying their territory and strangling their economic development a form of ethnic cleansing?

Truth is Sharon and his cohorts view the NATIVE people of Palestine with utter contempt. They are "dogs", "niggers" and worthless "human material". Albeit Sharon is but one in a long line of Zionist facists (themselves but a wing of the Zionist movement and NOT reflective of the entire movement.)

Rememebr, it was not a Palestinian who assinated Rabin.



From the US's POV that seems obvious. Hence Reagan praised the Mujihadeen as Freedom Fighters - yet now those very same Islamic extremists are maniacal "evil-doers"



Oh, okay, so what does that make the US's plan to launch 400-800 cruise missles a day into Baghdad?? Or what about the fire bombing of Dresden? Hiroshima? Nagasaki?

What I think this reveals is just relative a buzzword like "terrorist" is and how easily it can be used to disguise any kind of atrocity.

The so-called War on Terrorism is simply a boondoggle for war profitters, and an excuse for corrupt regimes to squelch any political resistence they find inconvenient.



First of all, the Balkanisation of Palestine to make life safe for illegitmate settlements was far from the rosy offer you make it sound. It's a moot point: if the criminal Bush administration hadn't simply ignored the crisis (god forbid they should do anything to continue building on the work of the Oslo accords) and if they hadn't already been secretly in bed with Sharon, feeding his September 2000 provocation at the Wailing Wall for no greater aim than to embarass Clinton, the current spiral of violence might never have been ignited.



Er, and why should Jordan have accepted such a solution?? Truth is the Palestinian people have been stabbed in the back by a lot of people - Israel, Britain, the US and the so-called pan-Arabists. All the more reason why a far more aggressive role in building peace in the region should have been maintained by the current administration. Oh, sorry, that might have been seen as somehow endorsing those devil-worshippers, the Clintons.

It may be of some interest to note that Sharon was associated with the 'Stern' gang during the British occupation of Palastine.

Of course that period of bombings, killings and assasinations was a freedom fight wasn't it?

Win, and your a hero freedom fighter.
Lose, and your a terrorist.

Regards.....Alan

Considering that the area in question (Israel) comprises approximately 25% of the British Mandate of Palestine, later known as Trans-Jordan, and then later, the Arab state of Jordan, where the majority of the 'palestinian' people lived after 1948.

So, it would seem to me that Jordan would have been more than happy to placate it's arab brothers.

Unless of course, they saw the palestinians aim to wipe the state of Israel off the map, and found Arafat and the PLO repugnant. The PLO was actually an umbrella organization for various other terrorist factions.
Just remember, for all the zionist propaganda, there is an equal amount of arab propaganda to be sifted through. Neither peoples are absolved of guilt.


Hopefully not off topic, but I felt that it helped to clarify the character and history of Arafat

Sorry...he's dead

Wow, and the so-called Arabs of Jordan treated them so much better.



Incoherant rambling?



Uh, check facts before opening mouth. The Mujihadeen was made up of very many factions ONE being the Taliban.



So you are a prophet too? What plans are these oh mighty one? Those bombings were done to end a war. Revisionist methinks or Monday morning general?



No, it's the typical PC crowd trying to redifine words to fit an adgenda of some kind. Pointless...but interesting.



Interesting. Do you have any proof of this or is this another rant? Which currupt regime would that be?



Please cite references for Bush being a criminal. In bed with Sharon..please cite more references. What does Clinton have to do with the wailing wall? Methinks you are ranting. Please put brain into gear.



Notice you didn't throw in the names of all the Arab countries that use them all the time. Selective to say the least.



With argumnents like these who needs to read any facts. Wow.

Darcaine

As I recall, Israel is not the only one to have had trouble with Arafat and Palestinians. It was Palestinians who were behind the assasination of the King of Jordan (King Hussein's grandfather), and they were behind the Sept (Black Sept) uprising against King Hussein after he offered them a homeplace within Jordan.

Arafat has been thrown out of Egypt, Lebanon, and Algeria because of his destabilizing influences inside the countries that offered him sanctuary. Palestinians have been thrown out of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE for supporting Saddam in the Gulf War. Israel is not the only one to have difficulties with Arafat.

Israel has come around to the fact that there should be a State of Palestine - the Palestinian leadership has never truly given up its profession of the annihilation of Israel. It's hard to deal with someone who wants you dead.

I don't exonerate Israel entirely, I think the West Bank settlements are wrong, but total annihilation of the Palestinians is not Israel's aim.

Padraig_Pearse

Your new here. (Welcome to the forums btw) so I'll go easy on ya

This forum isn't big on painting large groups of people with the same brush. We also don't really care for emotional rants that cannot be backed up with proof.

For instance, unless you are Aerial Sharons shrink, you canot say how he feels about his Arab neighbors.

And, unless you are a high ranking military official, or can predict the future, you cannot say for certain how many missiles a day we will fire at Iraq, or where they will hit.

Hint for future reference: Don't say anything on this forum you can't backup with a link. People will ask for one, and it will add to your credibility if you provide when requested.

--cheers

And your proof is.........?

As much as I would like that oxygen thief to be taking a dirtnap, I won't believe it until there is proof, or sufficient time has passed.

As for Arafat, he doesn't look to healthy either. Wonder if his passing would change the politcal landscape over there.

Gee, am sorry to have been away from here for so long.......






I am not Ariel Sharon's shrink but the claim to the territory stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates was ALWAYS the cornerstone of Jacobtinsky's revisionist Zionism. (It's based on Yaweh's "promise" to Abraham in Genesis 15:18)

That the Likudniks (Jacobtinsky's heirs) have long harboured a stretegy of ethnic cleansing for the Native population hardly needs documentation: from the demand of early revisionist settlers who turned on the British whenever they tried to impose equal application of law to both communities living under the Mandate (the Jewish settlers were, after all, "Europeans" - the Palestinians were, by turns, dogs, apes or niggers) until the present attempts to turn the occupied territories into warrens of alleged "autonomous zones (inspired no doubt by the former South Africa), the contempt is singularly evident.

As for the figure regarding missles (and the number) to be launched on Iraq, the figure I used was already widely reported at the time I cited it - it's the cornerstone of Rumsfeld's "Shock and Awe" strategy (gee, that alone sounds a lot like terrorism to me - the very point I was trying to make)

But, now, I should like to respond to Darcaine's fatuous attempt to discount my essential argument by belittling and questioning every single point I had to make. I find it disingenuous.

Here goes:

First, as to Jordan .....the point I made was why should the Jordanian's have had to welcome the Palestinians? Already burdened with an enormous refugee population the point is simple - to absorb the Palestinians would simply have legitmised the enthnic cleansing Israel wanted and would have made any future right or return impossible. By the same logic should we not say that the American and British refusal to absorb the Jews from the Nazified territories of Europe equally culpable? They too refused to welcome or remove the Jews and, indeed, consigned them to the terrible fate of the final solution. You seem to want to blame Jordan for Israel's crime - possibly - are you equally prepared to blame Roosevelt and Chruchill for the Holocaust? (hmmm - I thought not)

Second, you suggest that my point that Rabin was assassinated by extremist Israeli (and NOT a Palestinian) was "Incohernet rambling?" Huh?? In a thread meant to discuss the relative meaning of Terrorism and Arafat's position with regards to it, I'd have it thought it quite pertinent..

Third, there was no Taliban at the time of Mujahideen. (You should check your facts!!!) The Mujihideen was an artificially created pan-Islamic army of "freedom fighters" funded by the CIA, and harboured by the Pakistani ISI. It was the specific origin and cauldron from which the Taliban and Al Qaeda were to emerge. (This was a good example of your strategy - despite the fact that the thread was on the meaning of the word terrorist and my point that one decade's freedom fighter would prove another decade's "terrorists", you managed to completely skirt the issue by simply saying - erroneously - that the Taliban was simply one faction. Salient point regardless remains: did the US not fund them and praise them as long it was the Soviets who bore the brunt of the "terrorist" acts?? I would still like an answer as it goes to the heart of the debate? Are people fighting for the liberation of their homeland "freedom fighters" or "terrorists"??)

The next item, referring to my (albeit uncited) reference to the "Shock and Awe" strategy of Donald Rumsfeld, your response was as follows:



Nothing prophetic about it, I just happened to read the papers that week. I'm sure the veracity of my comment has by now filtered down. As to saying that Dresden, pr Hiroshima/Nagaski were done to end a war, that position has been utterly discredited. If anything, Dresden hardened German resolve and resentment and Hiroshima/Nagaski were launched simply to demonstrate American power and send a warning to the Soviets. In each case (again the salient point that you avoid) the aim was to TERRORISE civilian populations....

Fifth, do you honestly think the creation of a permenant war economy is somehow NOT a boondoggle for war profiteers??? If it is so in this case, it would be the first time in history. As for corrupt regimes using it as an excuse to label and thence crush rebellion among their own populations under the guise of fighting terrorism - let's see, it's already served to repress uprisings for liberation in Israel, the Phillipines, Columbia, the Phillipines and Russia. There are earlier precedents, Hitler's Germany alleged it was a victim of terrorists both within and without and even the demonic Saddam used that logic to try and crush the Kurds.

Again the key point here is when is a terrorist a terrorist and when is a "freedom fighter" a "freedom fighter".

As for the criminality of the Bush adminsitration I could start with Enron (or indeed the elction of 2000 itself, though I admit here that my use of the term might have been intemperate. Perhaps, I have grown so tired hearing people talk about the criminality of the Clinton adminstration without a single provable instance. I remain, though, unshaken in my conviction that history will show this administration to be the most corrupt in US History - and that it will make the Harding adminstration look like a Tea(pot dome) Party. (In fact, criminality seems to be the norm for Republican adminstrations ever since they lost their last great patriot and leader, the grotesquely underrated Dwight Eisenhower)

And yes, I'd thought it well known that Richard Perle worked behind the scenes to sabotage the Oslo accords. He was a consultant to Benjamin Netenyahu the last time the Likudniks were in charge. Sharon's provocation of taking a 1000+ troops with him to the Wailing Wall in September 2000 (thus re-igniting the infata) certainly was aimed at discrediting the Accords and, by extension, the Clinton adminstration. (Hey, I seem to remember, how after the Bush Adminsitration did NOTHING to advance or re-start peace negotiations for well over year a year, re-acted to the further spiral of violence by blaming it on Clinton - or perhaps I only need to "put my mind in gear"

As for your final comment"



I can only say, if your only means of rebuttal is to evade and distort like an Ann Coulter clone, then maybe it's you who is need of putting some "facts" on the table.

Padraig Pearse - Just for your info, Darcaine has been banned since you last posted.

Padraig_Pearse,

Thanks for the post, regardless.

arafat may be a terrorist, and at the very least, should not be leading the peace talks, but then neither should sharon. the palestinians haven't been able to change their leader (they do have elections) because of constant curfews enforced on them. Israel insists arafat round up militants in the west bank and gaza, yet the israelis bomb the palestinian jail (about a year ago) and kill palestinian police officers. (one of the recent rounds of violence ended eith a dead pal cop)

someone once said a comprimise is an agreement that neither side is happy with. these two sides need to comprimise, each can't have it EXACTLY the way they want it.

The main problem with replacing Arafat is this: by what mechanism would the Palestinian people "present" a new leader? They are living in a state of occupation; they are locked down with curfews; they have no rights; as a political body how can they make decisions? How could they organize? How could they vote? If the Israeli government were to set up a situation in which they could vote for new leadership, how could the Palestinians possibly trust such an election?

The Israelis should withdraw troops and operations in the Palestinian territories. Then, a UN sponsored election monitoring team should set up elections. That might work, but the Israelis will never go for it.

Plus, the Palestinians as a whole are so frustrated and angry, what incentive would they have to vote for someone who is going to make a compromise that involves in any way the idea that Israel's occupation has legitimacy?

The problem Isreal faces is there are too many anti-Isreali factions. Many that do not recognize Isreals right to exist. Arafat cannot insure peace, even if he wished.

Hugo:


Too true. But this is part of why it is facile to say that a peace agreement is dependent upon replacing Arafat. In truth, replacing Arafat as a way to a peace plan could only be accomplished if he were replaced by a puppet "leader" who would concede almost entirely to the Israeli occupation. Palestinians as a people are not overwhelmingly of the idea that peace can be achieved only through the elimination of the Israeli state, or the Israeli people - most of them merely want to live free of Israeli occupation.

I have some friends who, through the Church of the Brethren and the Mennonite Church, have traveled through the Palestinian areas. What they have seen is a much greater interest on the part of the Palestinians to merely be allowed to live without the fear of Israeli attack, to have access to hospitals, to have access to livelihood. They are less concerned with political ideology than they are with making it through the day alive. And even though Israelis have a justified fear of terrorist attacks, the situation in Israel is entirely different. For the vast majority of Israelis, they are able to go about their daily lives without the specter of fear of army tanks and helicopters invading their towns and levelling their homes.

So even if Arafat were replaced by someone who does not believe in the elimination of Israel, one would be hard-pressed to find a Palestinian who could lead with public support while espousing an ideology which justifies the Israeli settlements. And again, how can the Palestinians possibly carry out a popular election under the current occupation? Israel won't withdraw to allow an election, because surely they know that the results of any fair election are going to result in a leadership which will still continue to resist the Israeli stance.

Every time the Israeli's have backed out of the Palestinian territorities attacks upon Israeli civilians have immediately resumed. I just think people should remember that. The Israeli occupation is brutal and has to end, but it's not so easy as just leaving.

Maybe I'm over simplifying this, but Arafat is a terrorist that should have been tried for war crimes long ago. This is one area where appeasement does get people killed.

First off, if you target civilians, you are a cold-blooded murderer. There is no way-no how to justify the killing of 8 year olds for ANY reason.

Secondly, I agree Sharon is hard-line, but he's the one with the ridiculous burden the world puts on him. According to the Geneva convention, armed forces are to be in uniform to PROTECT civilians. So, if they want to be considered "soldiers", act like one. Secondly, it is against the Geneva convention to hide among civilians.

So, we basically have a bunch of murderous thugs hiding amongst civilians that jump up and down when - of all the crazy things - civilians get killed trying to run them down!

If these terrorists were truly freedom fighters, they would have accepted fair deals and used diplomacy like the rest of the world does to further their cause.

But that's hard work. Something they know nothing about.

Well, he fights against a superior force in isreal, being that they have tanks and rockets that the u.s funds, and his "terrorist group" has ak-47s.

"...Well, he fights against a superior force in isreal, being that they have tanks and rockets that the u.s funds, and his "terrorist group" has ak-47s...."

Very good point.

Except they are not fighting against the superior force or tanks and rockets supplied by the US.

Instead, they are using the ak-47's and explosives to kill 8 year olds and their mothers.

Yes, then isreal comes dozes over some houses, then if someone speaks out that start shooting rockests into buildings."civilians".

I dont understand why plo is called a terrorist group, that dont have any alternitives to fight. or how to fight and most no one cares about their case, so they have to do something, hospitols in palistine are not safe, the u.s sports all kinds of money and support to isreal, how is palistine or the middle east going to see that.

The PLO is a terrorist organization because they intentionally target civilian saturated locations with explosives. Maybe I'm being simple, but only terrorists seek out to murder women, children and the elderly.


I'm not sure if you've watched any news or read a paper, but we the US, are one of the few nations that do not overtly pander to the Palestinian cause at the total expense of Israel's side of the conflict.

And Nileriver....please, please, please use the spell check feature, my skin got all itchy when I read your post.....

You see, us in the civilized world use what we call "military bases". The people on these "military bases" wear what we call "uniforms". What these bases and uniforms do, is abide by international law and separate the military from the civilians so the wrong people don't get targeted.

The reason they have to doze houses and send rockets into these areas, is because that's where these murderous thugs hide. They use the civilians as human shields in the hope that nobody will go after them because of the risk to civilian casualties.

Here's a novel idea. Try diplomacy and use your plight as an advantage in a world very accepting of it. Look at a map of what the Palestinians consider Palestine. Where's Israel? Arafat lost any bit of credibility he could have had when he rejected the Camp David deal. He got just about everything pre-1967 and a front row seat in the world court.

But he rejected it.

You seem to miss the point to some extent, we the u.s gave isreal its country, and now fund them to keep it for some reason, is it that we decided that they are more worthy of life then some one else, oh and all the money we give to them to blow up these less then worthy people, i can see why we care so much about isreals plight to enforce death upon another group of people. After all it is fair over their, palinstine has forces to cope with isreals's u.s funded army.

Considering it's arafat who's started the whole mess by bombing Israel with suicide bombers in markets & bus stations & buses. The Israelis are just sick & tired of being picked on so they are taking matters into their own hands by declaring their own War on Terrorism with the held of the U.S.