PA President Mahmoud Abbas Quitting?

[mortimer]

i said that Israelis celebrate and honor terrorists.

you doubted this.

so i proved my statement to be correct. that is all.

No, I doubted that Israel has had murderers elected to PM. You have not proven that, and I doubt you can.

 

[ddt]

I think I'd agree, and his positions place him at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to rallying support among those who feel more angry about the Israel/Palestine situation as well.

Yes, a policy of non-violence doesn't attain much popularity when your side is down. And I think we all agree that the Palestinians are worse off now than when Abbas came in power.

And if he weren't quite possibly prone to corruption I think it might not be a bad thing if he got enough support. I don't hold that much faith in his not being at least as open to corruption as many other Fatah possibilities.

He was one of the very few who openly spoke out against Arafat for his corruption. Do you have indications that that was just tactic?

Another aspect of Marwan's popularity is that he is thought to be able to bridge the definite emnity between Fatah and Hamas. He also was Fatah's signer of the Prisoner's Document (there's another failed initiative in the I/P saga - but at least some Fatah and Hamas members could agree on something ).

Not unheard of, but definitely an outlier, don't you think?

Hmm, let me think. Lenin was exiled. Sukarno was exiled. But jailed... I'm hard pressed to think of another example of that. Should I have said "it's not totally unheard of"?

Oh, and thanks for actually responding topically. I appreciate the feedback.

Likewise! I see the SNR ratio in I/P-threads has only slightly improved since the departure of some forum members.

 

[mortimer]

when you bomb a building that you KNOW has civilians in it, you must take into account the possibility that something may go wrong, and innocent civilians may die.

its called "collateral damage". Irgun made that analysis and went ahead with the operation anyways.

And this is different than what Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama have done?

 

[ddt]

No, I doubted that Israel has had murderers elected to PM. You have not proven that, and I doubt you can.

See my post #11:

Come on, you know better.

Begin was the head of Irgun in the late 1940s. He was behind the attack on the King David Hotel. Shamir was head of the Stern Gang. He was behind the assassination of Bernadotte. I picked the most famous cases, both groups have done much more killings.

They were in a same position as for what Barghouti has been convicted for: planning murders, not executing murders themselves. Would be kinda hard in Barghouti's case, as he has been convicted of planning suicide killings.

And as to Begin, it's even worse than that the British wanted him convicted, from wiki:

MI5 placed a 'dead-or-alive' bounty of £10,000 on his head after Irgun threatened 'a campaign of terror against British officials',

And can we now go back to the actual discussion at hand?

 

[Thunder]

And this is different than what Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama have done?

give me a specific example where one of these 4 men made a decisions to hit a target even though there were known to be civilians there, and I will say yes.

no? then walk away.

 

[mortimer]

Well the basic gist I am getting is that it's OK for the Palestinians to have a convicted murderer as PM because Begin did some "bad things" (call it terrorism, call it murder, whatever) 60+ years ago.

 

[mortimer]

give me a specific example where one of these 4 men made a decisions to hit a target even though there were known to be civilians there, and I will say yes.

no? then walk away.

Bush I: Operation Desert Storm
Clinton: Operation Allied Force
Bush II: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom
Obama: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom

 

[Thunder]

Bush I: Operation Desert Storm
Clinton: Operation Allied Force
Bush II: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom
Obama: Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom

you're just playing games now.

i said specific events. specific targets. you give me the names of wars.

how pathetic. i suggest you move on.

 

[GreNME]

That was a very confusing interview. Stewart said many of the 'common sense' things that a lot of people always want to say, as always, but Barghouti seemed to be on a different script or something. Baltzer seemed like she lost her note cards or something and only had one left.

To be fair, Barghouti was trying to drive the conversation one direction, Stewart was attempting to drive things in another (not contradictory, but different) direction, and Baltzer was basically continually summarizing points she makes in her book. I actually think Stewart and Barghouti could have wound up getting into very interesting conversation were Baltzer not there.

I'm sorry, but "Peace has not been tried," is a damn silly thing to say. Has not been tried enough makes sense.

You have to understand the perspective he's coming from, which is actually a significant point that Baltzer attempts to convey in her book and website but falls into the trap of hyperbole defining reality just as much as the opposing viewpoint. Peace really hasn't been tried, but that extends to both sides and for different reasons each. The problem is in getting to a degree of communication where peace can even be tried, and in my assessment they're just not there yet.

Still, it is nice to know that in his stint as Information Minister he put an end to the children's programing shenanigans.

As far as I know, there are still openly hostile and similar things coming out of Gaza, unfortunately.

-----

Yes, a policy of non-violence doesn't attain much popularity when your side is down. And I think we all agree that the Palestinians are worse off now than when Abbas came in power.

And that's a damned shame. Of course, Sharon taking ill and the political jockeying that followed on the Israeli side really took a lot of wind out of Abbas' sails in political capital. Corruption in his party did the rest.

And if he weren't quite possibly prone to corruption I think it might not be a bad thing if he got enough support. I don't hold that much faith in his not being at least as open to corruption as many other Fatah possibilities.

He was one of the very few who openly spoke out against Arafat for his corruption. Do you have indications that that was just tactic?

Another aspect of Marwan's popularity is that he is thought to be able to bridge the definite emnity between Fatah and Hamas. He also was Fatah's signer of the Prisoner's Document (there's another failed initiative in the I/P saga - but at least some Fatah and Hamas members could agree on something ).

I don't have any indications that Marwan was just playing political tactics against Arafat. I think I've just become a bit worn down by the corruption that's been fighting tooth and nail to fill the power gap since Arafat, and it's probably negatively affecting my assessment.

It would be nice if Marwan could pull more of the Hamas party away from the extremist (and violent) parts, because that could go a long way toward actually getting a PA established that stands a chance of working out a settlement with the Israeli government for co-existence.

Not unheard of, but definitely an outlier, don't you think?

Hmm, let me think. Lenin was exiled. Sukarno was exiled. But jailed... I'm hard pressed to think of another example of that. Should I have said "it's not totally unheard of"?

Okay, good point. There's definitely a precedent.

Oh, and thanks for actually responding topically. I appreciate the feedback.

Likewise! I see the SNR ratio in I/P-threads has only slightly improved since the departure of some forum members.

Indeed. It's always nice to get some other perspectives, though, and honestly it's one of the few reasons I try to filter the signal-to-noise ratio out and keep at it myself.

 

[quixotecoyote]

you're just playing games now.

i said specific events.

Those were specific events.

specific targets.

The targets were countries where they knew civilians would be killed in collateral damage. It's the same moral calculus.

You're just putting arbitrary unjustified distinctions in place so you can make assertions without having to defend them.

how pathetic. i suggest you move on.

 

[quixotecoyote]

since Israelis have officially honored their own terrorists and murderers, and made them Prime Ministers and other high govt. officials, I really don't see the issue with Barghouti becoming PA President.

i said that Israelis celebrate and honor terrorists.

you doubted this.

so i proved my statement to be correct. that is all.

Tsk tsk. Lying for the cause once again.

 

[Eddie Dane]

If I remember correctly, Barghouti is a Palestinian activist who supports the use of violence and was actively involved.

But I think his approach was that it is justified to attack settlements and army units, but not civilians in Israel proper. His organisation is secular.

This is from memory, sorry if I'm wrong.

If I'm right, you could see him as a Palestinian version of Begin.

So, it would not have to be a disaster if he became the Palestinian leader.

You make peace with your enemies, not with your friends, to paraphrase Shimon Peres.

Tough guy with lots of credit with the Palestinian people on account of his activist past and stint in an Israeli jail. Paradoxically this puts him in a good position to do concessions. Just like it took a right winged bulldog like Sharon to push through the Gaza pull-out.

 

[a_unique_person]

Tsk tsk. Lying for the cause once again.

60th anniversary controversy




In July 2006, Israelis, including the past and future Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former members of Irgun, attended a 60th anniversary celebration of the bombing, which was organized by the Menachem Begin Centre. The British Ambassador in Tel Aviv and the Consul-General in Jerusalem protested, saying "We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated." They also protested against a plaque that claims that people died because the British ignored warning calls, saying it was untrue and "did not absolve those who planted the bomb." The plaque read "For reasons known only to the British, the hotel was not evacuated.”[31] To prevent a diplomatic incident, and over the objections of Reuven Rivlin of the Likud Party, who raised the matter in the Knesset, changes were made in the text, though to a greater degree in the English than the Hebrew version. The final English version says, "Warning phone calls has [sic] been made to the hotel, The Palestine Post and the French Consulate, urging the hotel's occupants to leave immediately. The hotel was not evacuated and after 25 minutes the bombs exploded. To the Irgun's regret, 92 persons were killed." The death toll given includes Avraham Abramovitz, the Irgun member who was shot during the attack and died later from his wounds, but only the Hebrew version of the sign makes that clear.[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing#60th_anniversary_controversy

 

[Darth Rotor]

you doubt my statement?

got any evidence of Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, or Obama, knowing that there would be civilian casualties in a specific strike and made the strike anyways?

no? i didnt think so.

Guess you had to be there.

The strikes you allude to were a bit more common than you might think, based on the RoE in force when I was active. The estimates and risks of what a given strike might be, with estimates or known population densities, is part of the strike planning process.

But Geneva does not forbid a strike on the premise that any civilian being is around. Such strikes are neither illegal nor improper under the conventions. Geneva requires that effort be taken so that any non combatant casualties be minimized, reduced in likelihood, where that can be done.

It isn't a zero defects standard.

You are barking up the wrong tree, out of your usual argument from ignorance. Desert Fox, Desert Storm, and the opening acts of Iraqi freedom were all operations where there was a risk of civilian casualties for numerous strikes. The same is true for the strikes authorized in Afghanistan/Pakistan since Obama has become president.

But it gets more interesting. In my experience, the RoE or CD acceptable loosened or tightened based on -- I was often confused, to be quite frank with you. Those decisions were often opaque at our level.

For example, the RoE in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) in re civil casualties has loosened considerably (by evidence of what I see in news reports) compared to four or five years ago.

In other words, Bush I, Clinton, Obama and Bush II all authorized RoE that included risk of civilian casualties, while the RoE also require extraordinary measures be taken meant to minimize or eliminate that risk where practical. A whole bunch of strikes I am familiar with were aborted, due to a ground commander revising the risk to civilians, and deciding that it did not meet the RoE. This allowed some of our enemies to live and keep killing ... civilians, as well as Coalition and allied Iraqi government forces.

Yes, it is Bizarro world.

To be specific: check the news for any complaints about air strikes in Afghanistan that found civilian dead. In compliance with RoE. Bush II and Obama both accountable for that RoE. Bush II, the infamous decapitation strike in Mansur district when OIF started. Clinton: strikes during Desert Fox, and the Tomahawk strike on Iraqi Intelligence building that IIRC killed some janitors, or something like that. Memory fuzzy. Bush I: internationally televised tape of various smart munitions hitting various buildings in Baghdad.

The civilians may not have been targets, but the proximity of civilians made the risk of them getting hurt/killed greater than zero.

Clinton: aspirin/chemical factory in the Sudan.

ETA: Hey, guys, we are going OT from the OP. The discussion is: who would replace Abbas?

Fayyad, anyone? Current PM of the PA. I bet the under.

DR

 

[Thunder]

Tsk tsk. Lying for the cause once again.

how did I lie? does Israel NOT celebrate its terrorists from the Palestine days?

yes they do. they do indeed. I have not lied. check yourself.

they named an Israeli medal after the group that killed Count Bernodette.

they had a ceremony to honor the bombers of the King David Hotel.

Menachem Begin, former leader of the Irgun, which bombed the hotel, became PM.

.......owned.

 

[quixotecoyote]

how did I lie? does Israel NOT celebrate its terrorists from the Palestine days?

since Israelis have officially honored their own terrorists and murderers, and made them Prime Ministers and other high govt. officials, I really don't see the issue with Barghouti becoming PA President.

.......owned.

eta: and for the record, trying to equate the King David Hotel bombing, controversial as it was, with the **** Hamas has pulled, is pathetic and you know it.

further eta because you succeed in yanking my chain (congrats): An attack on a military target with warnings given to evacuate civilians. This is the example of the 'terrorist' attack you use to justify giving moral equivalence to Palestinian terrorists who target civilian populations with no military targets without warning.

 

[quixotecoyote]

So I went and did the digging on Irgun. As in I went and visited the wikipedia article.

Despite the fact the the only things Parky, AUP, Fool could think of and argue didn't help their case at all (King David Hotel, Netanyahu, etc), it turns out that as soon as one goes and does the actual reading, that Begin actual did preside over terrorist actions.

You could actually make a decent case for that if you were interested in the facts instead of grabbing the first straw that helps your side. It wouldn't be a perfect case, as Begin had a policy of minimizing civilian casualties, but the eye-for-an-eye mentality of the members of his organization were terroristic and it was his responsibility to control them.


...


You know guys, it's really unfair that I have to carry both sides of this debate. Could you step up your game a little?

 

[Thunder]

The bombing of the King David Hotel was an act of terrorism. Menachem Begin was part of this terrorist operation, and later became leader of Israel.

Israelis have celebrated the bombing years later.

Israelis have also created a medal for soldiers, that honors a terrorist group that murdered the UN representative Folk Bernodette.

Palestinians honor terrorists. Israelis honor terrorists. same crap.

 

[quixotecoyote]

The bombing of the King David Hotel was an act of terrorism.

Not equivlaent

Palestinians honor terrorists. Israelis honor terrorists. same crap.

Not remotely equivalent.

You could make a decent argument against Begin and Irgun, but you don't care enough about the facts to do so.

You just stay on this moral equivalency binge and ignore the facts on both sides that might actually lead to a reasoned moral judgement.

It's lazy, sloppy, partisan thinking on par with "Hitler was responsible for killing people. Truman was responsible for killing people. Same crap."

It fails to contextualize. It fails to compare. It fails to analyze. It fails. It fails and fails and fails and fails.

The sad part is, you're probably smart enough to know that.

 

[Thunder]

Not equivlaent

I'm sure the Jewish and Arab civilians who were killed in the attack, might disagree.

any attack that knowingly leads to the deaths of civilians, is an act of terrorism.

i would expect you, to know what.