Israel decides to expel Arafat

[Panag]

hi ,

some info from those sources , .....

have a nice day


SUMMARY OF EDITORIALS FROM THE HEBREW PRESS
-------------------------------------------
(Government Press Office)
14 September 2003

Ha'aretz - http://www.haaretz.com
Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com
Ma'ariv - http://www.maariv.co.il
Yediot Aharonot - http://www.ynet.co.il
Hazofe - http://www.hazofe.co.il
Globes - http://www.globes.co.il

Yediot Aharonot discusses the rationale of the war with the Palestinians. The editors argue that it is difficult to explain the survey published in Yediot Aharonot on Friday in which 60% of the public supported exiling Arafat, but that only a small percentage believe that such an act would actually reduce terror, in any other way. The paper further believes that targeted eliminations of the Hamas leadership have reduced neither terror attacks nor the capabilities of the terrorists in the long term, as promised. The editors believe that exiling Arafat will result in further Israeli deaths and lead to no actual advance in the peace process.

Ha'aretz writes: "At a special meeting held on Thursday, following the lethal suicide terror attacks at Tzrifin and Jerusalem, the government decided that Israel will act to remove Yasser Arafat. The government deferred the timing and the method of the Palestinian Authority chairman's removal to a date that has yet to be determined. As could be expected, the decision instantly led to the strengthening of Arafat's status among Palestinians, as well as in the international arena. The decision seems so stupid that it raises suspicions about the possibility of a concealed strategem. It appears, however, that the
truth is far more simple: once again, the government has failed to fathom a reality that any reasonable person readily grasps. The way to deflect Arafat's pernicious influence is not to flex muscles, a la the Sharon government. Instead, the prudent course is to create leverage needed to expand the moderate Palestinian camp that is prepared to reach compromises with Israel. This dynamic will only come about if the government reexamines its whole policy approach toward the Palestinians and offers them a viable proposal - a
Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel."

Hatzofeh asks whether Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom's statement that Arafat will be exiled with or without US support is realistic. The editors point out that "the Prime Minister brought a decision before that Cabinet that avoided adopting practical and immediate steps to exile Arafat," and attribute this to the fact that US National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice made the US's opposition to such a step clear in a conversation with Prime Minister's Bureau Director Dov Weisglass. The paper asserts that no action will be taken against Arafat without the support of the US administration.

The Jerusalem Post writes: "The attorney-general is entitled to expect public figures to conduct themselves with extra sensitivity and responsibility. They have a special civic duty to cooperate with the authorities beyond the letter of the law in order to set an example. Rubinstein alluded to the peculiar case of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's sons, Omri and Gilad. Rubinstein's justified demand that relatives of public figures fully cooperate in cases involving said public figure would carry far more weight, had police and prosecution behaved discreetly and honorably, without resorting to intimidating publicity offensives, and if they exhibited equal tenacity in all their cases. We cannot fail but note the marked lethargy and near-silence with which the police and the prosecution have handled the Ehud Barak non-profit organizations case, also dating back to 1999. We would like to see all involved in all above cases cooperate with investigators and we would like to see the investigators treat all their cases with equal determination and fair-play. All these cases need to be concluded within reasonable time frames, so as to clear the air and allow the anyway extraordinarily difficult business of this state to proceed without burdensome distractions."

[Ofer Shelah wrote today's editorial in Yediot Aharonot. Ma'ariv had no editorial in today's edition.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------

**Israel Decides to Expel Arafat

Israel's cabinet decided on Thursday night that Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat was "a complete obstacle to any process of reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians" and that the Government would work to remove this obstacle "in a manner, and at a time, of its choosing," Israel Radio, KOL YISRAEL reported. The cabinet also said that Israel would only negotiate with a Palestinian prime minister who immediately acted to dismantle and remove the terrorist organizations. In addition, the cabinet decided to expedite to construction of the security fence.
Meanwhile, according to YEDIOT AHARONOT, a poll conducted Thursday shows that sixty percent of Israelis would like to see Arafat killed or expelled. The telephone survey was conducted by the Dahaf Institute which asked 503 respondents what should be done with Arafat. Thirty-seven percent favored assassination, 23 percent said Israel should expel him and 21 percent said he should continue to be isolated at his West Bank headquarters. Fifteen percent said Israel should release him from isolation and resume negotiations with the leader. The Dahaf survey has an error margin of 4.4 percent.



--------------------------------------------------------------------

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
Refugees?? The "right of return" is the biggest load of crap in the whole process. We are talking about third and fourth generation people in most cases. In addition, the "refugee" camps have been kept squalid by the Pal leadership despite the US and Europe pouring millions and millions in aid into them that somehow never seems to get to the people. Israel will NEVER agree to this crap and rightly so. It is the final strategy to try to gain political control over Israel after a peace deal is finally done.

The pals don;t have control of the refugee camps: they are run by the UN. Their main problem is ack of space. Outside of the occupied territories the local govs. have the bigger say. The Syrians and Lebanese have made the camps in their araes squalid, since they don't like the Pals. The thing is, Arabs wil outnumber Jews in the areas west of the Jordan in a few years anyhow (without counting the hundreads of thousand that are neither) without a single refugee coming back. Finally, the pals have a great role model: the Jews. 1700 years after being quicked out, they came back through their hard work and the aid of a few friendly powers..why should the Pals. not aspire to the same comback, if expidiated like everything in modern times is?

The current round of violence may end up backfiring on the Pals negotiation position. Israel may now require concrete steps to dismantle terrorism before anything else can be talked abot. The Pals are not likely to comply. The violence will continue and it is the Pal people who will suffer most. This can be traced back to Arafat directly if you look at his positions over the years. To say that there can be no peace while Arafat is around is not silly. It is unrealistic to assume anything else. He carries the real and symbolic power of Palestine. No deal will go through without his approval. No deal will get his approval that does not provide for the political or physical destruction of the state of Israel. You must recognize the facts and the history.

What facts? What Arafat craves is his own power: if Israel designed a deal in which arafat ends up being the white knight in shinning armor that saves the Pals, then he would step in in a heartbeat and crack down on whomever he needed. That is the thing: one has to be realisitc about people, not hide behind demaguogery and masks created for one own reasons. Removing Arafat physically from the Occupied territories achieves nothing: he retains his position of power. Killing him would make things very much worse in the short term and then slow for some time to come becuase he would retain his spot in memory..IF you wish to continue with the notion that peace as long as he is there is impossible; then you have to undertake a way of removing him that does not in fact make him central to everything. IN essence, it has to be the palestinians who remove Arafat for his influence to end; any other way will fail. So ask yourself, how do we get the Palestinians to, instead of showing uip by the thousand to rally around this guy, to say: Arafat was the pas, we don;t want you anymore, good bye.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
Even in 2000 the issue of refugees had not been dealt with

Yes, it had. There was going to be a fund to pay for recompensating the refugees, with a right of return for the refugees into the new Palestinian state, as well as a number of refuggees let back into Israel for family reunification. Arafat and the Palestinian side was said to be happy with the fundamental solution if not the details. Of course, now, they simply yell the mantra
Right of Return! Right of Return!

[Panag]

Originally posted by GePap


The pals don;t have control of the refugee camps: they are run by the UN. Their main problem is ack of space. Outside of the occupied territories the local govs. have the bigger say. The Syrians and Lebanese have made the camps in their araes squalid, since they don't like the Pals. The thing is, Arabs wil outnumber Jews in the areas west of the Jordan in a few years anyhow (without counting the hundreads of thousand that are neither) without a single refugee coming back. Finally, the pals have a great role model: the Jews. 1700 years after being quicked out, they came back through their hard work and the aid of a few friendly powers..why should the Pals. not aspire to the same comback, if expidiated like everything in modern times is?



What facts? What Arafat craves is his own power: if Israel designed a deal in which arafat ends up being the white knight in shinning armor that saves the Pals, then he would step in in a heartbeat and crack down on whomever he needed. That is the thing: one has to be realisitc about people, not hide behind demaguogery and masks created for one own reasons. Removing Arafat physically from the Occupied territories achieves nothing: he retains his position of power. Killing him would make things very much worse in the short term and then slow for some time to come becuase he would retain his spot in memory..IF you wish to continue with the notion that peace as long as he is there is impossible; then you have to undertake a way of removing him that does not in fact make him central to everything. IN essence, it has to be the palestinians who remove Arafat for his influence to end; any other way will fail. So ask yourself, how do we get the Palestinians to, instead of showing uip by the thousand to rally around this guy, to say: Arafat was the pas, we don;t want you anymore, good bye.

hi ,

the camps are run by the UN , .....


huh , where are you getting this from , ....


hez****la , crapfatah , bullfarthamas , nogoodfornothingtanzim , etc , ..... THEY run the the so called "refugeecamps" , often they shoot it out with each other , and when people get hurt the western media runs to the hospitals blaming ones more Israeli's , yet ofetn we are not around for miles and we , or even ZAKA bring them to the hospital , .......

and as far as the UN goes , it still stands to this day for United Nothing , ......

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by Edan


Yes, it had. There was going to be a fund to pay for recompensating the refugees, with a right of return for the refugees into the new Palestinian state, as well as a number of refuggees let back into Israel for family reunification. Arafat and the Palestinian side was said to be happy with the fundamental solution if not the details. Of course, now, they simply yell the mantra
Right of Return! Right of Return!

the right of return , fine , no problem ; we shall grant it at ones , only one small condition then , that WE can also return to our homes in the arabworld , ......

[GePap]

Its the details that Arafat had to go back with: and in general he would have ben crucified had he gone back even with that deal anyhow.

As I said before, if demographics it the worry the jewish state is screwed as is, without a single refugee going back.

See, this is what gets me: "with Arafat, peace is impossible". Proof? That he turned down the 2000 deal and chose terror. Fine answer, but it leads to this question: Would any other Pal leader have chosen the route to take that deal back and try to sell it not only to the pals. in the occupied territories but the refugee camps outside as well? remmebr their being a lot of talk abou how Barak would have a hard time getting that deal approved by the Israeli public: never saw much about Arafat perhaps having problems selling it to the Pal public: I guess the much lesser political freedoms of the pals. made the question moot, no? My guess is that both peoples would have rejected several of the particualrs agreed to in late 2000.

[GePap]

Originally posted by panag
the right of return , fine , no problem ; we shall grant it at ones , only one small condition then , that WE can also return to our homes in the arabworld , ......

Fine, do so.I am sure a deal with the Arab league could be worked out.

[Drake Tungsten]

Report: Killing Arafat is option, Israeli official says

RAMALLAH, West Bank (CNN) -- Israel's deputy prime minister told Israel Radio on Sunday that killing Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat is an option.

"We are trying to eliminate all the heads of terror, and Arafat is one of the heads of terror," Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in the interview, according to Israel's daily Haaretz.

"In my eyes, from a moral point of view, this is no different from killing others who were involved in ... acts of terrorism" Olmert said. "It's only a practical question. What is the benefit? What will the reaction be? What circumstances will allow this?"

Israel has come under international condemnation for the decision Thursday by its security Cabinet to remove Arafat because he is an "obstacle" to peace. Israel has not specified when, how or if the government might remove him.

Reacting to Olmert's comments, Palestinian minister Saeb Erakat told CNN Radio the Israeli government was behaving "like gangsters."

"Nation-states should not act in the way of blackmail, extortion, assassinations ... nation-states must adhere to the rule of law," he said. "I believe [what] the Israeli government is doing now is not the action of nations anymore, it's like gangsters."

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell also rejected Olmert's comment. "The United States does not support either the elimination of him [Arafat] or the exile of Mr. Arafat ... the Israeli government knows that," Powell told "Fox News Sunday."

"I think you can anticipate that there would be rage throughout the Arab world, the Muslim world and in many other parts of the world," Powell said.

For a third consecutive day, crowds of Palestinians gathered Sunday outside Arafat's compound, showing support for the confined leader in the face of an Israeli threat to remove him.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/14/mideast/index.html

[Edan]

What Arafat craves is his own power: if Israel designed a deal in which arafat ends up being the white knight in shinning armor that saves the Pals, then he would step in in a heartbeat and crack down on whomever he needed.

Nonesense. The guy craves power, yes, but he also realizes that he lacks the basic leadership skills to build up an actual country. He's spent 40+ years as a terrorist and he refusses to change his way - and he knows that he would have to once a state is formed. He didn't enter Oslo because it made him a white knight, he entered Oslo because it gave him more power to use as a terrorist.

[GePap]

A nice case of saying things for public consumtion. I guess all of this talk is much cheaper than invading Gaza.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't really care anymore. I say the rest of the world just ignores the whole situation and lets it solve itself.

[Edan]

I'd rather have Arafat put on trial than put in exile or killed.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan
Nonesense. The guy craves power, yes, but he also realizes that he lacks the basic leadership skills to build up an actual country. He's spent 40+ years as a terrorist and he refusses to change his way - and he knows that he would have to once a state is formed. He didn't enter Oslo because it made him a white knight, he entered Oslo because it gave him more power to use as a terrorist.

Oh, yes, his actions from 1993-2000 clearly show this...

So many words for so little said.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan
I'd rather have Arafat put on trial than put in exile or killed.

Wow, you really found the best of all worlds: just the thing to trully make hims a martyr without killing him! Yup, you can sure see pals. coming forward to talk to Israel when they arrest and try (under what jurisdiction, well...) their leader.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


Oh, yes, his actions from 1993-2000 clearly show this...

Umm, Given that he used his power to funnel money and weapons to the terrorist groups, allow them to build up, had schools designed to brainwash kids, and so on, yes it does.

Arafat to a crowd in Gaza in 1996 after a suicide bombing: "We are all suicides!" White knight, indeed.