Bye bye Arafat!

IDF is ready to remove Arafat

The IDF is ready to carryout the Cabinet's decision to remove Yasser Arafat the moment the orders are given, a senior military source told The Jerusalem Post Wednesday.

"We have presented plans showing the risks and the chances of the operation itself, including the chances to remove him alive or not," the senior officer said.

"The government has to make a decision to allow the army to act. The army is ready. The army always plans for all possibilities."
Speaking on condition that they not be identified, the senior military officer said that the near constant deployment of forces in the territories since the violence erupted three years ago was not fatiguing the troops.

"I'm not worried. The battalions are strong and have high standards and are working well. Every four months new soldiers are added to the fighting and commanders are rotated. The standing army can keep this up for years," he said.
He added that the current conflict with the Palestinians would not end with a major military measure.

"We can stage a major operation again like Defensive Shield. We can do one in the Gaza Strip," the senior officer said. "But this conflict is one of stamina between the Palestinian and Israeli societies. What concerns me is the resilience and stamina of the Israeli society.

The top officer presented a pessimistic view of reaching any agreement with the present Palestinian leadership, which, he said was continuing to reject a two-state solution. He said Arafat chose terror to avoid making an agreement.

"Arafat thinks that by demographics and terrorism there will be one state and it won't be Jewish," the senior officer said. "Arafat doesn't care about what to do with the Palestinians. He cares about his place in history."

"Now as we mark the 30th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, I suggest we examine ourselves to make sure we are not prisoner to the conception that we have a formula for solution," he said. "It could be we have it but the Palestinians are not cooperating."

The senior military officer said that the Jewish state was capable of violent rage against an enemy and warned that there could be a point where the Palestinians could certainly spark it.
"(Dresden) or Nagisaki or Hiroshima?" he sighed, referring to allied bombing of German civilians and two US atomic bombings during the Second World War. "I don't think we are at that point but it could be that the Palestinians will bring us to this at some point," the senior military officer.

"If it becomes clear to us that even after Arafat the leadership that will take over is not a partner for any kind of solution or arrangement I presume Israeli society will start to discuss other options. It wouldn't go without the legitimacy of society," he said.

Regarding Syria, the senior military officer said President Bashar Assad was currently "embarrassed" by the IAF raid against an alleged terrorist training camp two weeks ago.
"You have an army with 450,000 men in Syria, but we have been able to open a gap in relative advantage which has been translated to a deterrence," he said.

"We can deal with the Syrian threat. It is not existential."

"Israel has significant deterrence over Syria today. We see it. We struck at a terrorist target in Syria and there is embarrassment there. If we had not been deterring the Syrians and Hizbullah, then I think that the northern front would have been a lot hotter," the senior officer told The Jerusalem Post.

"The Syrians have this deterrence out of fear that escalation in the north would put the Syrian army to the test," he said. "If they felt the Syrian army was strong to stand up to the IDF it would have let the Hizbullah to be more daring. They prefer the Palestinian front and are responsible for a lot of what is happening here. They prefer this because they thought we would not link the two fronts."

"Our last strike put the responsibility on them for what is happening here."

According to the senior source, $40,000 was transferred from Syria to a terrorist cell in Nablus which attempted to carryout four attacks which Israeli security forces foiled. The fifth succeeded in Rosh Ha'ayin.

"Syria understands that a Western army like the IDF, with the capabilities shown by the Americans in Iraq, an army which is capable of locating a car of terrorists in the middle of a refugee camp and hit them with precision guided munitions (PGM), is an army that can also deliver PGMs to tanks, bunkers and headquarters and to palaces."
In a first acknowledgment by an IDF officer of the August report an IAF fighter buzzed Assad's palace, the senior officer described what transpired.

"Imagine this F-15 flying 50 meters above Assad's palace at 1 a.m. in the morning, with all of is thrusters directed exactly over the palace and no one even detected it until it was over the palace. This is embarrassing not to mention unpleasant," the senior officer said with a chuckle.

There is only one prolem with removing Arafat: there is no one to replace him

Not true, removing Arafat from the West Bank, would clear the way for other Palestinians to take a shot at bringing peace. Two Palestinians prime ministers in the past couple of months, have quit because Arafat will not give up control of the 20,000 man Palestinian police force. He being the head of state should be held accountable for his peoples actions.

[Trey Brister]

Originally posted by WarLord
There is only one prolem with removing Arafat: there is no one to replace him. He is the one unifying persona in the Palestinian diaspora right now. Making him a martyr by removing him from his homeland will only make him even more of a symbol. With him gone, things may actually become worse due to a break down of the central authority.

He is the one unifying persona in the Palestinian diaspora right now.

Point one: You are so sure he is the one persona that can lead how? You have lived there your whole life to know this?

Point 2: diaspora is a term associated with the worldwide dispersion of Jews out of *their* homeland by babylon, greece, and rome. This term does not describe the arab occupiers of Israel. This phenominon unique in the history of the world continuesback from before christ. 200bc. This is not the case with the so-called palestinans.

Making him a martyr by removing him from his homeland

it is not *arafats* homeland, he is an Egyptian immigrant. It is the Eretz Israel, judea and samaria.

With him gone, things may actually become worse due to a break down of the central authority.

Yeah right, disorganized terror is far less dangerous than that terror organised by government and financed by UN and US foreign aid. With him and all terror states definanced and ultimately crushed by their victims will be better for the Israelis than that rotten sort of central authority.

PS Unlike bfp and company, I am not for many roles for US foreign adventurism and intervention. I just look at the truth and help people see through shallow propaganda.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by WarLord
There is only one prolem with removing Arafat: there is no one to replace him. He is the one unifying persona in the Palestinian diaspora right now. Making him a martyr by removing him from his homeland will only make him even more of a symbol. With him gone, things may actually become worse due to a break down of the central authority.

I understand that there's a power vacuum with him gone, but he's said on many ocassions that he will not submit to any peace plan that leaves Isreal intact in any way shape or form. What needs to be in place is someone willing to actually compromise(on both sides for that matter) if this is ever going to be solved diplomatically. Arafat isn't the answer, if he was this whole situation would have ended decades ago.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by WarLord
Just as he has recently stated, since the creation of the areas he currently "controls" that some accomodation must be made between the parties. He's been playing the radicals vs. the moderates withint the PLO for decades. The question then is what are they going to play like with him gone?

Considering the rash of bombings that seem to pop up regularly under his rule - not that I'm claiming he orders, though it wouldn't surprise me honestly - it's not like we're talking about kicking Adam from the Garden of Eden. The situation is horrible over there, there's as much chance of the situation improving as there is of it deteriorating further. One thing is for sure, as long as he is in power, nothing will be settled.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by WarLord
Arafat is not the solution, but neither in Sharon. Both, however, at this point and time have the power to make it work in this moment. Removing either from power without their consent, or killing them, would make it more difficult as hardliners would become even more rigid and moderates less likely to compromise.

Yes, and both have had the power to do so for a considerable amount of time which neither has used at all. Power is only theoretical unless it is wielded, and neither of them has used their power to broker an agreement. All both sides have done is pander to their respective sides like any politician worth his salt does.

At what point do you bench the QB that isn't performing? Or more appropriately, when do you fire the coach that isn't accomplishing anything?

Arafat isn't the answer, if he was this whole situation would have ended decades ago

Twice Arafat was offered 90% of what the Palestinians wanted, in Egypt in the early 90's both sides were so close to peace, when it came time for Arafat to sign, he changed his mind and said he couldn't do it. Yitzak Rabin wanted peace so bad he had everything rolling in the right direction, and Rabin lost his life for it. Ehud Barak offered Arafat again 90%, of their demands. The next day Arafat for no reason what so ever ordered the Palestinian deligation to pack up, they were heading home with no deal. Shortly after Ehud Barak lost his job becasue of that. But Arafat will not hand over his power to any Palestinian, Arafat selecting a Palestinian to become a prime minister, is simply bullshit to show the west he is doing something.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by Trey Brister
Point 2: diaspora is a term associated with the worldwide dispersion of Jews out of *their* homeland by babylon, greece, and rome. This term does not describe the arab occupiers of Israel. This phenominon unique in the history of the world continuesback from before christ. 200bc. This is not the case with the so-called palestinans.

But...palestinians are are jews who converted to Islam...shouldn't that make it their homeland, too?

Originally posted by WarLord
There is only one prolem with removing Arafat: there is no one to replace him. He is the one unifying persona in the Palestinian diaspora right now. Making him a martyr by removing him from his homeland will only make him even more of a symbol. With him gone, things may actually become worse due to a break down of the central authority.

Arafat can control the factions only in so far as directing them to do harm.

I believe that when Araft signed the Oslo Accords he meant what he agreed to - but found he couldn't restrain the factions - so he chose to exercise control in the only meaningful way he could.

Slaying the big ugly dragon in front of you ay result in lots of ugly little ones - ever see Fantasia? When Mickey beats up the broom with the axe?





and.............."Palestinian Diaspora"? I thought you had to qualify as a "nation" or at least have some kind of national identity to have a diaspora - and I thought the term was of special importance and reference to the Jews. Careful - Muslims living in the area called Palestine may take offense to using such a filthy term to refer to them.

Palestine is a location not a country or a nation. Palestinian refers not to a language, a culture or ethnicity.

[WordToYoMama]

Originally posted by WarLord
There is only one prolem with removing Arafat: there is no one to replace him. He is the one unifying persona in the Palestinian diaspora right now. Making him a martyr by removing him from his homeland will only make him even more of a symbol. With him gone, things may actually become worse due to a break down of the central authority.

This is very true i think, b/c as soon as they see that he was taken by "force", it will only increase their support for him, and his ways of life. Leaving the people in a chaotic frenzy destroying everything possible in an extreme case, but if its not that bad, it will still have pending effects on the people... period.

[Trey Brister]

Originally posted by Adam D
But...palestinians are are jews who converted to Islam...shouldn't that make it their homeland, too?

Wrong, So called palestinans are recent immigrants from surrounding nations.

Even the word palestinian is a word made up by the romans in 70 ad to describe the area when the wiped out and dispersed the jews throughout their empire. They wanted to use the most insulting name they could think of so the chose the Jews ancient enemy, the Phillistines of Gaza, remember them, David and Goliath of Gath? The gaza strip was the original phillistine homeland, NOT Israel, Judea, or Samaria

You are thinking of samaritans and the did not convert to islam, they converted to idol worship of statues.


Nice Try Adam

[Trey Brister]

Originally posted by WarLord
And it is a term that has become increasingly used throughout academia to reflect the dispersion of people of a single culture or area to other parts of the world. It's not uncommon to see the word used in academic works pertaining to the almost mass immigration of Irish to the U.S.A. in the 19th century.
[/B]

Irish were dispersed, arabs in israel, were disposessed, this does not make a diaspora.

Originally posted by WarLord
No actually then it belongs to Great Britain, or France, or Turkey, or Byzantium, or Rome......it belongs to them as much as the land you're standing belongs to you.....just ask any Native-American.
[/B]

Well by your arguement the most militarily powerful rightfully controls the land, so why are you arguing for the so-called palestinians. And any land that the IDF can control is theirs.

But I do not advocate this, only that Israel controls the land deeded to them by the original title office, Yahweh 2500 BC

Originally posted by WarLord
A central authority can impose order, or at least curtail, the activities of its orgainzation. If the central authority is weakened, no matter how corrupt it may be, then you have the rise of blocs whose allegiance is to a single person or area. Look at Afghanistan where to this day, the central government controls a fraction of the nation as most of it is under control of regional warlords and/or the Taliban.
[/B]

Central Authority = IDF

Originally posted by WarLord
Keep trying as you need more practice. [/B]

Thank you warlord for providing more shallow left wing propaganda as fodder for my practice.

Home Boy

[Trey Brister]

Originally posted by xiannaix
Arafat can control the factions only in so far as directing them to do harm.

I believe that when Araft signed the Oslo Accords he meant what he agreed to - but found he couldn't restrain the factions - so he chose to exercise control in the only meaningful way he could.

Slaying the big ugly dragon in front of you ay result in lots of ugly little ones - ever see Fantasia? When Mickey beats up the broom with the axe?





and.............."Palestinian Diaspora"? I thought you had to qualify as a "nation" or at least have some kind of national identity to have a diaspora - and I thought the term was of special importance and reference to the Jews. Careful - Muslims living in the area called Palestine may take offense to using such a filthy term to refer to them.

Palestine is a location not a country or a nation. Palestinian refers not to a language, a culture or ethnicity.

you tell em boy

[Trey Brister]

Originally posted by WarLord
[B]You call it dispersed. Over 2 million dead Irshmen, many starved out of their homes, were FORCED by the economic plocy of the Englsih to leave Ireland. Hundreds of thousands died and lost their property in this and other atrocitites committed by the Englsih in Ireland. Where do you get off definging what is nd what is not a forced disposition and immigration? How dare you insult any other race, ethnic group or similarly targeted group throughout history. Arrogance must be backed up by at least least a modicum of wit.

Originally posted by WarLord

And it is a term that has become increasingly used throughout academia to reflect the dispersion of people of a single culture or area to other parts of the world. It's not uncommon to see the word used in academic works pertaining to the almost mass immigration of Irish to the U.S.A. in the 19th century.

You changed the subject first to the Irish. Is this such a highly charged issue for you warlord.

You are the arrogant one.

Save the "How dare you's" for your mama.

Arafat can't deal with the fact that he is no longer the #1 man for the Palestinian cause, he wants to be the one who can end the intifada, Arafat has been confined to his Ramallha compound for two years now, he hasn't left that building once, but he still can make calls and have militants arrested.

But...palestinians are are jews who converted to Islam...shouldn't that make it their homeland, too?

God offered the Torah to the hebrews, not to the muslims, and they accepted it. As for the hebrews who later converted to Islam they lost their claim to the land. Other parts of the hebrew bible, talmund, the books of Moses plus 613 commandments, muslims do not accept that, but its all part of the Torah, jews condsider themselves Gods choosen people, muslims claim God changed his mind, and picked the muslims. Right now as I speak, Palestinians are eraceing evidence on the Temple Mount, so they can say there was no eveidence that there were two Temples that sat on mt. moriah, in the old city Jerusalem. But its not the Palestinians land, the jews were forced out by the Romans, then came along Islam and they took over.