The U.N's Gonna Do What?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mannyfreshstunna, Sep 15, 2003.

  1. mannyfreshstunna

    mannyfreshstunna New Member

    Feb 7, 2003
    Naperville, no less
    UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 15 — Spurred by a top Israeli official’s comment that killing Yasser Arafat is an option being considered by Ariel Sharon’s government, the United Nations met Monday to consider a resolution that would call on Israel to ensure the Palestinian leader’s safety.


    Ummmm......why????
     
  2. spejic

    spejic Cautionary example

    Mar 1, 1999
    San Rafael, CA
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    The UN is an organization created by and populated by the power holders of each nation. They now hear that someone is going to conduct their political ends by killing a power holder of a (psudo-)nation. Of course they are going to come down on this. When there is a chance that they will personally face danger, you can bet that they will band together and stop it.
     
  3. mannyfreshstunna

    mannyfreshstunna New Member

    Feb 7, 2003
    Naperville, no less
    It matters not that Arafat is a terrorist and the major obstacle to peace there?
     
  4. Foosinho

    Foosinho New Member

    Jan 11, 1999
    New Albany, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    First - do you really think assasinating Arafat would accomplish anything?

    Second, how would you feel if China said that they would assasinate the Dali Lama, or (10 years ago) Britain said they would assasinate Gerry Adams? (Neither is a perfect analogy, but bear with me.) Would either of those assasinations actually accomplished anything? If you know the history of the Irish Free State, you know the answer would be "no". Would those gov'ts be right in assasinating opposition leaders?

    How about if the US decided to assasinate the leader of the Michigan Militia?

    Assasination of opposition political leaders is messy business to begin with. You can bet the UN would do everything in their power to discourage such actions.
     
  5. mannyfreshstunna

    mannyfreshstunna New Member

    Feb 7, 2003
    Naperville, no less

    I wouldn't be backing this messy business if Arafat had made the slightest progress. Instead, he showed to the world that he is an obstacle that must be removed by any means in order for this peace wagon to get back on the road (map).
     
  6. Foosinho

    Foosinho New Member

    Jan 11, 1999
    New Albany, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You may be right - things may indeed go more smoothly and quickly with Arafat out of the picture. But that doesn't mean assasinating him will help. I expect it would do the opposite. Yes, he'd be physically "out of the picture", but not in the hearts/minds of Palestinians.

    If he's to be removed from the process, it has to either be voluntarily, or at the will of his people. Otherwise, he's not really removed.
     
  7. DoyleG

    DoyleG Moderator
    Staff Member

    FC Edmonton
    Canada
    Jan 11, 2002
    Victoria, BC
    Club:
    FC Edmonton
    Nat'l Team:
    Canada
    If this was the other way around, would the UN do anything?

    Not a F****NG chance.
     
  8. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Cincilluminati
    Club:
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Philippines
    Uh, yes on one, big negatory on the other. I get the feeling there'd still be fussin' and fightin' with Arafat gone.

    The Palestinians have, as Sifl and Olly would put it, some serious-ass Jew-hating problems. And the Israelis have some serious-ass treating the Palestinians like dogshit problems. Whoever you think started it COUGH*the Palestinians*COUGH, it's definitely self-perpetuating by this point. It's going to take years and years to get anything settled, and the trick right now is to keep Israel from finally deciding to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians.

    I seriously don't think that the Palestinians are suicide-bombing themselves and Israeli civilians to oblivion just because some drooling old murderer told them to. It's a way deeper problem than that.

    Besides, yanking Arafat would cause way too many casualties to justify the adventure. I'm frankly fine with assassinating him, but the only upside is to make sure the man behind Munich 1972, and untold other atrocities, dies a violent death. Won't accomplish anything, and it might backfire. So they shouldn't do it.

    Oh, there's a moral reason not to pop an old man from range? Well, yeah, in theory. I guess. But it's not as if it would escalate anything. Unless you think Hamas and Al-Aqsa and whoever else aren't already doing as much damage as they possibly can. You think they wouldn't pop Sharon if they had a chance?
     
  9. Belgian guy

    Belgian guy Member+

    Club Brugge
    Belgium
    Aug 19, 2002
    Belgium
    Club:
    Club Brugge KV
    Are you are basing this on what exactly?
     
  10. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Yeah Manny ... coz if there's one thing the Middle East is ever so short of then it's Martyrs. Especially really big, important ones for whom people are willing to die without question even whilst alive.

    I can see that his "removal" by the Israelis would play tremendously well amongst the other side of this coin. Why, we'd be back on that road (map) to peace and harmony before you could say "frenzied backlash".

    What on earth is the UN thinking ...
     
  11. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well, we wouldn't be seeing any more posts from Ian McCracken, for one thing.
     
  12. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Yeah, I guess the leader's houseboy would be unlikely to survive an assassination attempt.
     
  13. verybdog

    verybdog New Member

    Jun 29, 2001
    Houyhnhnms
    I don't understand why killing Arafat would make a difference. I don't believe that Hamas is controlled by him. It's all personal with Sharon it seems...that is unwise...will tarnish Israelis' reputation as a moral people forever...could get them into a big mess...

    I don't believe in assasination. It's a dirty business. Hardliner conservatives are pushing the history and civilization backward. Shame on them.
     
  14. Roel

    Roel Member

    Jan 15, 2000
    Santa Cruz mountains
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Netherlands
    Sharon oversaw the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in 1982. The Lebanese government counted 762 bodies recovered and a further 1,200 buried privately by relatives.

    Here are some photos. Plus, an acquaintance of mine, Robert Fisk, was there the day after.

    http://www.littleredbutton.com/sabra_shatila/

    Now he is continue to do this with Jenin and other towns in the Gaza. He appears to be an obstacle to peace.

    Yitzak Rabin was pushing for peace with Palestine. He was assassinated, shot at very close range, apparently by Israeli hardliners.

    It is fairly obvious why Sharon is such a fan of assassinations. It is his history.
     
  15. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Cincilluminati
    Club:
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Philippines
    And this is where you lose me.

    The Jenin "massacre" has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

    Haven't you got enough dirt on Sharon without making shi'ite up?
     
  16. El_Maestro

    El_Maestro Member

    Jun 5, 2002
    Planet Earth
    Club:
    Barcelona Guayaquil
    How can you tarnish the already tarnished?
     
  17. Roel

    Roel Member

    Jan 15, 2000
    Santa Cruz mountains
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Netherlands
    Boy, you must be pretty hardened when you think that a few dozen dead and hundreds of homes destroyed does not count as an attrocity. Here is a good description. If this was just a one-off mishandling of a difficult situation, then it could be counted as a mistake, along the lines of the Waco debacle.

    http://www.time.com/time/2002/jenin/story.html

    I was pointing to a pattern of behaviour. Targetted assassinations, bombing and shooting in residential areas, destroying property is all in a day's work for Sharon.
     
  18. Finnegan

    Finnegan Member

    Sep 5, 2001
    Portland Oregon
    This whole situation really did go to hell with the assaination of Rabin.

    Then they really were on a road map to Peace.

    Rabin was assainated by a hardline Israeli conservative who saw him as a major threat to the prospect of Peace.

    To my mind Sharon and Arafat are two sides of the same coin. Neither benefits with peace. Hamas and the Likud party can be thrown in there also.

    We will not have peace there until those who have a vested self interest in continuing the conflict (Sharon and Arafat) are gone.

    Assainating them is the dumbest phucking idea possible.
     
  19. Dan Loney

    Dan Loney BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 10, 2000
    Cincilluminati
    Club:
    Los Angeles Sol
    Nat'l Team:
    Philippines
    From your own freaking link:

    There was a battle in Jenin. It was real urban warfare, as a modern, well-equipped army met an armed and prepared group of guerrilla fighters intimately familiar with the local terrain....A Time investigation concludes that there was no wanton massacre in Jenin, no deliberate slaughter of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers....

    The Jenin camp, which is administered by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, has existed since 1953; 13,055 registered refugees live in a square whose sides are about 600 yds. long.

    Even by the standards of Palestinian refugee camps, Jenin is gruesomely special. Since the start of the Aqsa intifadeh in September 2000, the camp's activists, drawn from the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Islamic Jihad and Hamas, have orchestrated at least 28 suicide attacks on Israeli targets.


    And all this under the United Nations, and under Arafat's Palestinian Authority. Why, exactly, were the UN and the PA permitting an armed terrorist training center to operate pretty much openly?
     
  20. christopher d

    christopher d New Member

    Jun 11, 2002
    Weehawken, NJ
  21. mannyfreshstunna

    mannyfreshstunna New Member

    Feb 7, 2003
    Naperville, no less
    Let me spell this out for everyone one who doesn't get this. Arafat is a huge problem becuase he WILL NOT under ANY circumstance relinquish control of the security forces to a Palestinian PM. This was made abundantly clear with Abbas as the PM.

    Instead of giving Abbas the security forces to root out Hamas militants, he kept them under his control for his benefit. Instead of hunting terrorists, Arafat kept his corps of bodyguards intact.

    While he is in control in Palestine, there will be NO peace.

    Most Palestinians arn't looking for a martyr. They are looking for peace. Do they sill despise Israel? Hell yea. Do they want to remain at war? Hell no.

    Remove Arafat, install a palestinian PM dedicated to peace, and something might get done there.

    But *#*#*#*#*#footing around Arafat will lead to nothing more than continued violence.
     
  22. Demosthenes

    Demosthenes Member+

    May 12, 2003
    Berkeley, CA
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Manny, you'll be pleased to hear that the U.S. vetoed the resolution.
     
  23. mannyfreshstunna

    mannyfreshstunna New Member

    Feb 7, 2003
    Naperville, no less

    Right, because it was drafted Arab states bent on condemning Israel for something, that IMHO, has to be done.
     
  24. NateP

    NateP Member

    Mar 28, 2001
    Plainfield, NH, USA
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I agree with everything you say about Arafat. I disagree with everything you think will follow from taking him out.

    While I think you are right that a majority of Palestinians wants peace assasinating their elected leader isn't exactly the way to bring them to power. If Arafat is killed it won't be a pro-peace leader (Abbas?) who takes over the leadership role, it will be Hamas. If Israel tries to appoint a Palestinian leader he will be ignored as the patsy he will be seen to be.

    The only way for peace to become the true Palestinian policy is for Arafat to die on his own or be killed by a more hardline rival group like Hamas. Once that happens there will be a chance for a true pro-peace leader to emerge, but there are no guarantees it will happen even then.

    In the meantime Israel needs to do whatever is neccessary to protect it's citizen's and prevent attacks.
     
  25. Matt Clark

    Matt Clark Member

    Dec 19, 1999
    Liverpool
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Manny, why is it that your brain cracks out into neutral every time you get a bit of rant momentum going? Sorry, that question kind of answers itself, but seriously - how can you spew this assinine bluster ??

    We know Arafat is a major obstacle. It's pretty obvious, that. But equally, it does not require a rocket scientist to extrapolate from your witless "keeel heeem" rant the likely outcome of any such idiotic action by Israel. That you purport to know the mind of the ordinary Palestinian on the street is, given the abject lack of perspective you demonstrate, all the more laughable.

    Arafat must be politically outmanouvred, he must be exposed for the sham he is, the self-interested, shallow desperate old man for whom violence and the hatred it engenders are the twin pillars of his political strength. Only by offering the Palestinians a viable alternative to the cause of violence that he espouses as the only effective means of gaining what 'they' want will we be able to marginalise this vile old man.

    And, of course, there's quite a few people on the other side that need treating in a similar fashion.
     

Share This Page