When the Law of the Jungle Prevails

[DuctapeFatwa]

It's hard to be a Jew today, even an American Jew, when the headlines are screaming, "Israeli official: Killing Arafat is a possibility." .." It appears that the United States and Israel are abandoning the laws of civilization and returning to the laws of the jungle. The Palestinian leadership is not far behind...Yet now I am watching the two countries with whom I have the closest possible emotional ties behaving in ways so morally repulsive to me that I am outraged and anguished every time I pick up a newspaper. And the Palestinians? The people who virtually invented the concept of the suicide bomber? How ugly can you get?...

Israel has excellent reasons to dislike Arafat. He has had many opportunities make peace, and he always seems to choose war instead. But you can say the same thing about Ariel Sharon...The news from both sides of this conflict is horrific. Israel floats the idea of assassinating Arafat. The removal of Palestinians from the West Bank, an idea once considered unthinkable, is now being seriously discussed. What could be more odious than a Jewish state developing a "final solution" for the Palestinian people? ...

This is not America's business. This is not the UN's business. This is the world's business. ..We need to stop taking sides - all of us, right now. We need to exert serious moral pressure on the Israelis and the Palestinians to put aside their very real grievances, and, in the name of humanity -- for God's very real sake -- find a way to live together.

Or else we will truly, as one Israeli Arab said about killing Arafat, "open the gates of hell."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-09.htm

[MysticMind]

1. the problem is the world holds Israel to

A higher standard than it holds Arab states. Israel is accused of genocide while the world ignores Saddam's gassing of Kurds and Jordan's massacre of Palestinians. States like Saudi Arabia have no business preaching about Israel's human rights. Arabs have more human rights in Israel than in any Arab state(I don't mean in the West Bank)

[DuctapeFatwa]

2. I think there has been a tendency to have higher expectations of Israel

and the US than one has of a street gang.

But globally, the percentage of people who have had that mistaken notion is dropping rapidly.

[MysticMind]

3. Arafat tends to hang himself...

If given enough rope. Threatening to expel him only increased his world popularity.

[Gimel]

13. A good point

Although it has been noted before, it is still ignored. Those who say that because the UN "created" Israel it has to be perfect, or that it has to live up to the expectations of the US taxpayer who after all "pays the bills" for Israel. Therefore Israel is in debt to them to be a flawless nation, like any stepchild that they later wish to discard.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. No-one's said Israel has to be perfect...

I know this has been noted before, yet it's still ignored. People have a very simple expectation and that is that Israel respects and complies with international law and the Geneva Convention. Trying to translate that into an accusation that people demand Israel and Israel alone be perfect reminds me of a little kid whining that his parents want him to be perfect because they grounded him for a week after he blew up all the letter-boxes in the street. There's a world of difference between expecting Israel to behave like a responsible and law-abiding member of the international community and expecting it to be perfect, which is an unrealistic demand to put on any state...

Violet...

[Gimel]

35. comply international law and the Geneva Convention

When no one else does.

[Resistance]

41. that's ridiculous

of course everyone else should - did you not read Violet's post?

[Darranar]

42. Well...

just to take the other side for a moment here, isn't it true that violations of the Geneva Conventions and other pieces of international law might be neccesary to defend against war crimes?

[Resistance]

45. individual cases

are not really for you or I to decide; and frankly I don't see much in the Geneva Conventions which could be violated yet justified as necessary for defense of a nation. You're kind of vague on the "other pieces of international law" - so I can't comment there much.

An international court is in the works though, where certain cases can be tried and judged accordingly. It will come sooner or later; of course the US (and Israel) are dragging their feet because they see it as a threat to their power and ambitions.

[Darranar]

46. Thanks for the response...

Is it not true, though, that the Geneva Conventions prohibit the targeting of an off-duty combatant? Correct me if I'm wrong here.

That's the part that I have the most trouble with. Like several other people on this forum, my dislike for the extra-judicial assasinations is not so much the extra-judicial part fo them, but rather the lack of regard for civilian life when such missions are carried out (and, sometimes at least, the fact that the target shouldn't really have been a target, like Ismail Abu Shanab.)

I would not be bothered by a strike on a terrorist, off-duty or not. Nor would I be bothered by strikes on combatants, off-duty or not, as long as the war in which they were targeted was justified. To me, they cease being civilians as soon as they become combatants, and therefore it is okay to strike them.

[Resistance]

49. I am not sure

the GC specifically mentions "off-duty" combatants - but I am no expert either. I think what you are describing is a vague interpretation of specific articles in the GC. Maybe someone else would know for sure.

Nevertheless, most states are party to the Geneva Conventions (have ratified/agreed to it), and have an obligation to follow what they and the rest of the world signed on to.

List of States party to the Geneva Conventions

It is long past time for international intervention between Israel and various Palestinian groups. Both sides defy international law, and both sides are clearly using the 'any means necessary' approach to taking revenge and sending 'harsh punishments' on the enemy.

But the fact is that peace benefits the Palestinians, and does not benefit Israel - so what does Israel and the U.S. do? Oppose international intervention. Then, the hypocritical thing for them is to cry to the world about how nasty the Palestinian extremists are -- it is hypocritical because they know full well that they have the power to stop it.

[Darranar]

51. Peace will benefit Israelis greatly...

there will be more money to spend on social programs once that money is taken away from Defense spending. And not having terrorists blowing themselves up on your cafes and buses will be a good thing for them, too.

[Gimel]

62. Absolutely

Israelis do not want this conflict. But Arafat must be able to deliver peace. If not, he must be replaced.

[Gimel]

53. Radio report of terrorist fight

I'm not sure, but it could have been Ismail Abu Shanab who was killed by another terrorist group, along with two other Palestinians yesterday, according to a radio news report.

[Darranar]

54. Ismail Abu Shanab?

He was killed in an extra-judicial assasination that the Israelis accepted responsibility for. This was after the jerusalem bus bombing.

You must be mistaken.

[Gimel]

57. Here are the names (approx)

Sarak Nasar was killed in crossfire between two rival factions of the Al Aqsa Martys Brigade. Tuwari was injured but while in hospital was attacked and killed in revenge.
The first man, Nasar had survived two IDF assasination attempts.

To hear the news broadcast, go to this address:
http://www.israelradio.org/english.html

Click on the AM news broadcast (will last about 1o hours from now, at which time the broadcast will be replaced by tomorrow's).

[Darranar]

58. Thanks...

wouldn't it be great if the terrorists killed themselves off?

[Gimel]

59. Some points of violation

First there's the use of children in armed conflict. Reports of children 14 years old carryings arms in the territories, attacking tanks, etc are not uncommon.

It is a violation of the GC for gunmen to hide in civilian populations (thus necessitating attacks which endanger civilian lives).

Therefore, the suicide bombing attacks, the kidnapping of off-duty soldiers or civilians, all is against the Geneva Conventions. That's just Article 3. I agree these things are unjustifiable.

Furthermore, the cursory trials and hangings of Palestinians as "collaborators" is likely to fall in the last point of
"The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples". again, unjustifiable

The treatment of prisonsers sounds pretty complicated and exacting. I'm not sure the US follows this in Guantanamo. Are there prisoner representatives? I'm not even sure what that means. The prisoners are entitled to humane treatment. I'm not sure that this is done in every case, or if it is possible to fulfill all of these requirements in every instance.

[Darranar]

60. So?

Both sides are violating the Geneva Conventions, then.

[Gimel]

61. Just added content

After rereading Resistance's post I added more content in answer to his question. As I said in another post, the GC is violated by many nations. You would probably ahve to show a pattern of intent for torture and inhumane treatment, not just a case or two where the stipulations were not met.

In cases where there is no judicial review of reported violations, the international body may step in. This is not the case in Israel.

[Darranar]

63. Does it matter, though?

Does the fact that other people are murdering innocent people justify the murder of innocent people?

I condemn the war in Iraq, I condemn the war in Afganistan, I condemn oppressive regimes all over the world (whether they're supposed to be "socialist" or not) for violating basic human rights. Why shoudl I not condemn Israel as well? To avoid doing so would be a double standard.

[Gimel]

43. Of course.

No other country complies with resolutions. Just because the UN passes a resolution, do you think it's going to change any policy? That's really putting on those rose-colored glasses.

[Resistance]

47. You do know

you are completely wrong when you say "no other country complies with resolutions" - or do you think all governments in the world just carry on with their business as if the UNSC wasn't even in existence?

[Darranar]

48. Well the US doesn't...

if it did, we wouldn't have begun the slaughter of innocent people in Iraq.

[Resistance]

50. yep

and then the U.S. pretends to wonder what those whacky "leftist retards" are talking about when they describe the U.S. as a 'rogue state'

[Gimel]

55. I didn't say security council

I didn't even say all resolutions. What about France and nuclear testing or GB and the Faulkland War? Did the UN vote or pass aresolution? Maybe they have too much power for anyone to object to their aggression.

[varun]

4. practice what you preach...

...all your other posts show how one sided you are and that you are the one taking sides here...

[Darranar]

5. Wait...

are you in support of killing Arafat?

[MysticMind]

6. on a moral level I support killing him..

But not pragmatically.

[Darranar]

7. On a moral level...

I can see your position, though I disagree. My question for you is: Why do you think it is moral or legal to kill the leader of the Palestinians?

[MysticMind]

8. let me explain better

1.) Arafat isn't the leader of the Palestinian people, he was never elected

2.) Arafat is the leader of Fatah, the political arm of the PLO...so he is more of a military leader than anything

[Darranar]

9. Actually...

yes, he was elected. Additionally, he is a political leader. He is president of the PLO. I ask you again: Why is Israel justified in attempting to or killing Arafat?

[MysticMind]

10. they are only if

There's evidence he is still supporting terrorism. Israel shouldn't kill him though.

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. Would the Palestinians be justified in killing Sharon?

As opposed to pursuing the case through the Belgian courts?

Are you recommending that both Israel and Palestine formally abandon the rule of law and due process?

[rini]

12. The PA

can't abandon the rule of law and due process, they never followed them to begin with.

[MysticMind]

16. kill Sharon for what?

The Belgian charges against him are bogus.

[Darranar]

17. I don't support the death penalty...

but I think for the massacres in Lebanon he deserves life. In jail, that is.

[DuctapeFatwa]

21. I think he deserves a clean habitable cell pending a fair and open trial

There are some key witnesses who have not suffered tragic fatal accidents.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Because he is a terrorist

And remains so.

[Darranar]

15. Please provide some real evidence...

to back up that statement.

[MysticMind]

18. you're right..

The PLO is just a social club. Don't you think the CIA, Mossad, etc. have hard evidence that as civilians we don't have access to? Arafat doesn't take a crap without the Mossad knowing about it.

[Darranar]

19. Oh, yeah, right...

So, where are the famed Iraqi WMD?

Your statement gives them infinite excuses.

"Why did they shoot that person? All he was doing was walking down the road!"

"Hey, remember: they have evidence that we don't have. Leave it alone."

And so on.

[dai]

20. evidence

Why would Mossad keep the evidence secret? It's not as if they need to capture him, since he is already confined.

Again, since Arafat is under virtual house arrest I am not impressed by Mossad's ability to report on his bowel movements. Where and when Osama defecates, on the other hand...

[MariMayans]

22. lol

You really, really, really, live in a fantasy land. The CIA and the Mossad don't give a damn about "terrorism", not only is it not their job it's the exact opposite. Their business is in wielding state terror and they have no concern at all about the lives of the peons of the state.

[Darranar]

23. Welcome to DU!

:toast::bounce:

[dai]

24. Thanks!

[rini]

26. The Case Against Yasser Arafat

1. In 1968, a year after Israel's victory in the six-day war, Arafat became the father of international terrorism by directing a campaign of airplane hijackings.
2. In 1972, the Palestinian leadership decided to escalate its terrorism by attacking the Israeli Olympic team in Munich. Oudeh, mastermind of the murders, publicly stated that "Arafat was briefed on the scheme."
3. Several months after the murder of the 11 Israelis in Munich, Arafat personally planned the kidnapping of two American and one Belgian diplomat in Khartoum. Arafat was in the Black September radio command center in Beirut when the message to execute three Western diplomats was sent out.

<snipe>
http://www.usainreview.com/2_27_Forgotten_Terrorist.htm
There exists a tape of that intercept, and of Arafat giving the direct order to murder the diplomats...

4. Shortly after the Khartoum killings, the Palestinian leadership once again ratcheted up its violence, this time targeting Jewish houses of prayer around the world. It targeted synagogues in Paris, Vienna, Brussels, Rome and Istanbul, killing dozens of Jews who had no connection with Israel.

5. Israel's...Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians a state, control over the Arab section of East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount and more than 90% of the disputed territories. Instead of either accepting this offer or continuing to negotiate for a better deal, Arafat returned to his tried and true method of targeting innocent civilians.

http://christianactionforisrael.org/index.html

by Alan M. Dershowitz


<these articles a just the tip of the iceberg>

[Violet_Crumble]

27. That's no case - that's crap from right-wing websites...

Got something a bit more credible than right-wing schlock? Somehow things coming from a site that attacks Democrats and praises Bush for 'liberating' Iraq just misses something in the credibility stakes...

Violet...

[Darranar]

29. You beat me to it...

see below.

[rini]

32. beats INDY

[Darranar]

33. Indymedia?

Well, yes, perhaps there you're correct.

[Gimel]

36. Credibility

The site usainreview.com doesn't seem to have any political affiliation. If you disagree with the facts presented, you should be able to refute them, not attack the source on the basis of your own political views. Can you refute one of the actual historical claims?

[Darranar]

37. LOL!

The site usainreview.com doesn't seem to have any political affiliation.

Give me a break. Show me an article that isn't right-wing or pro-Israel on that website. It seems to be a website full of right-wing propaganda spin.

If you disagree with the facts presented, you should be able to refute them, not attack the source on the basis of your own political views.

If I told you that all Jews, Zionists, and Israelis were foul demons, would you feel the need to refute it? If I found "evidence" from StromFront.org or DavidDuke.com supporting it, would you feel the need to refute that?

Can you refute one of the actual historical claims?
No, not right now, though I'll get to it sooner or later. Not that i should have to, because I already strongly suspect the content of that website, rightfully...

On Edit: I forgot one of your statements.

[Gimel]

39. Just the facts

Show me an article that isn't right-wing or pro-Israel on that website

Although I have only looked at some of the title, as pro-Israel article does not prove a political affiliation. In fact, the lead article on this thread is pro-Israel.

For unbiased information (presenting both sides of an issue) a good source is:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Here are some interesting findings:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_massacre

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September


As for Yasser Arafat:

There have been charges of corruption and
mismanagement in the Palestinian Authority. In
a special annual issue of Forbes Magazine,
Arafat was reported to control US$300 million,
making him among one of the richest in its
category of "Kings, Queens and Despots."

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/342236.html

[Darranar]

40. And?

I saw nothing in those articles to indict Yasser Arafat. Wikipedia seems a rather unbiased source; I have seen it before.

As for the last article, I have already read it.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Did you even bother to look at the website?

Obviously not, considering it took no longer than a few seconds to spot the extreme right-wing bias there. My political views are that of a left-winger, which is why I post at DU. I don't expect to be hit over the head with RW crap like this website and then have someone coming along demanding I refute 'historical claims' from the same piece of shit website, any more than I expect to see demands to refute crap posted from an anti-semitic site....


Violet...

[Darranar]

28. NOTHING WHATSOEVER...

about terrorism during his tenure in the PA. That's what I wanted. (btw, I couldn't find the second article; do you have a better link?)

Btw, I suppose you don't read that website regurlarly? otherwise, you would have noted:

http://www.usainreview.com/11_26_saddam.htm">Saddam's Deadly Arsenal
By Thomas W. Murphy

As the first team of U.N. weapons inspectors prepare to take up the hunt for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Iraq continues to deny they have any weapons of mass destruction. Putting aside Iraq's past record of deceit and deception, even the most trusting individual would have to doubt the Iraqi claims in light of the fact they have been aggressively trying to purchase large quantities of anti-nerve agent drugs.

Over the past few months Iraq has ordered over 1.2 millions doses of Atropine from Turkish pharmaceutical companies. Atropine is standard military issue for soldiers in conflicts where they might be exposed to poison gas. Atropine blocks the bodies uptake of nerve agents such as sarin and VX. The same lethal nerve agents used by Iraq against the Kurds in 1988. The Iraqi's are also trying to obtain a large quantity of the auto-injectors which deliver the drug into a person's leg. The purchase of large amounts of Atropine indicates that Iraq is making preparations to protect it's troops in the event Saddam Hussein orders the use of nerve gas against U.S. led forces. A CIA report released last month said Iraq has resumed chemical weapons production and estimated Iraq has at least a few hundred tons of chemical agents including mustard gas, sarin, and VX. While the U.S. is pressuring Turkey to ban further sales of Atropine, intelligence officials fear that hundreds of thousands of doses may have been already delivered to the Iraqi military.

Another indicator that Iraq still has chemical weapons was an order for 25 metric tons of a powder called Aerosil from a German chemical company. The powder which can be used to make "dusty" chemical weapons, has particles so small they can penetrate through the fabric of a protective suit or a gap in the seal of a gas mask. According to U.N. records, Iraq's Samarra Drugs ordered the 25 metric tons of Aerosil under the U.N. oil-for-food program and that at least part of that order was delivered last month. Samarra Drugs is one of the companies that worked on Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons programs before the Gulf War of 1991.

And that evidence was so correct, wasn't it?
And this on the same website... Perhaps I sholdn't trust the Arafat article?

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Hey, that site is hilarious!

We've really got to thank rini for sharing it with us. My favourite so far is this attack on Tom Daschle and the whiny liberals...

"Whiny Democrats like Tom Daschle are the domestic enemy. They detest George W. Bush, and their distaste for him runs so deep, they’re willing to sacrifice their own freedom and ours for a political edge. If Democrats like Daschle and his ilk had been running the country during World War II, we’d all be speaking German right now."

and...

"Fortunately, liberals don’t run the country. Courageous, decisive, non-whiny men are out there protecting the precious freedom that I and every other American enjoys. Islamic terrorists are a global threat and must be stopped. They want to destroy the very liberty that allows even spoiled, pampered, coddled, college coeds with too much time on their hands to march downtown, block traffic, impede commerce and protest against President Bush while burning the American flag."

http://www.usainreview.com/4_8_Against_All_Enemies.htm

Now I'm off to read an article called "Nancy Pelosi - Dumb-ocratic leader". This should be fun....


Violet...

[Darranar]

31. OMG!

Another site I should add to my list of right-wing junk sites...

[DuctapeFatwa]

34. Why doesn't he just come out and say it - girly-men who need to pump

"81 year-old Daniel Chick from Ohio was detained briefly in the Israeli port city of Haifa. Police stopped Chick as he tried to board a boat for Cyprus and found two handguns and ammunition in his bag. According to his Lawyer, Mr. Chick was heading for Afghanistan in the hope of hunting down Osama bin Laden and collecting the $25 million bounty. Chick was released by Israeli authorities after he agreed to give up his weapons and leave Israel. He was last seen heading to Athens, Greece. You gotta love that American spirit...."

http://www.usainreview.com/short%20talk_32.htm

[Gimel]

38. although well expressed

The article has some very powerful statements. However, I disagree with the author's conclusion. Somewhere in the middle of the article she writes this observation:

But every time peace comes close, Hamas or some other group blows up something Israeli and we're back on the merry-go-round of anger, hatred and fear.

While she also notes that:
Israel has excellent reasons to dislike Arafat. He has had many opportunities make peace, and he always seems to choose war instead. But you can say the same thing about Ariel Sharon.


Truthfully, there is the cycle that is reignited with the bombing of Israelis by the Palestinian terrorists. Sharon won't make peace on that note, and neither will Arafat. Each wants to has his foot on top of the other's for the negotiations.

However, Barak was in office during Camp David. And although he was also cautious and suspicious of Arafat, there was a reasonably good offer made which Arafat rejected out of hand. That was before Sharon was elected.

About the US taking sides. I think that the US avoided taking sides until the present administration. Clinton didn't take sides, although he had closer friendship with Rabin than Arafat, and neither did his predecessors. That seems to ensure that the stalemated position would remain, that the status quo of aggression and it's predicable rounds would continue.

Clinton, by the way, supported the sidelining of Arafat, and the leaning towards the Israeli position after he was out of office. The only way to resolve the conflict is to remove the terrorists. The terrorists can be defeated by the political, economic, social and military actions which defeat it on all fronts. Military action alone will not defeat terrorism. It must be combined with the political, economic (including legal action against economic ties which support the terrorist groups)efforts. Promoting democratic reforms and listing to the needs of the Palestinians. Economic assistance that actually reaches it's goal, the alleviation of the poverty is imperative.

We need to stop taking sides - all of us, right now. We need to exert serious moral pressure on the Israelis and the Palestinians to put aside their very real grievances, and, in the name of humanity -- for God's very real sake -- find a way to live together.

While all of us want a peaceful solution, the view expressed above proved unsuccessful. The Rabin-Arafat handshake on the Whitehouse lawn, the triple Nobel Prize awards, what did it all lead to? the rejection of peace, and a new Intifada using suicide attackers.

Detractors claim it was a lousy offer. That is simply an excuse. The offer was to live in peace. That was the lost hope. That would have led to a sharing of the land, so that border demarcations were less important, and a wall would never have been thought of.

Only by following a logical leadership, that will defeat the terrorist organizations can peace succeed. Only, I might add, without Arafat.

[Resistance]

44. Gimel - serious question

do you know anything at all about the details of the Camp David and Taba talks?

Read this sometime: http://www.fair.org/extra/0207/generous.html

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.

Now answer this: would any Israeli PM have accepted (even in the name of "living in peace") an 'offer' where the Palestinian Authority divided all of Israel up into 3 distinct zones, with PA owned "bypass roads" criss-crossing everywhere, and an 'indefinite' stage of Palestinian "security control" over certain areas that would have blocked Israeli access to its own borders?

[Gimel]

56. Interim phases

Please refer to the agreements as they are outlined in full on several sites on the internet. This report gives partial truths and out of context quotations. The final agreement that was offered would have a contiguous area. Some of the lands which are national forest areas would remain in Israeli control.

As for your question, you apparently haven't seen the original map for partition of Israel by UN mandate the Israel accepted in 1947 but the Palestinians and Arab states rejected. Israel is not the PA and by reversing this question, you have put other issues out of view. Security issues, the problem of incitement against Israel, terrorism and the terror attacks, to name the most prominent. If I were in the Palestinians shoes, I would have made peace a long time ago, and I think any PM of Israel would have also, even if the land area was divided.