Better would be to try him for war crimes, or just regular crimes under Israeli law. An assassination is too much — Israel has total control of his movements, can remove him any time. There is no prudential justification, in my mind, for the Israelis to treat him like the leader of a hostile power in the model of Hitler. Israel, if she had the nerve, could take care of him with judicial means.

Robert E. Lee found out you can’t fight a war purely on the defensive. Furthermore, the best defense is a good offense (an expression which only becomes all the more true when a side is morally in the right). Arguing about what Israel should do is like arguing about what two plus two equals. It’s like watching first graders arguing over reading “Fun With Dick and Jane” and struggling over their first sums in addition. Adults just watch benignly and save their breath.

Noah Millman had a good analysis of the case for killing Arafat. Here is his article:

http://www.gideonsblog.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_gideonsblog_archive.html#106330545542215419

But the rights and wrongs of the act is less important than the consequences it will bring. The question the Israelis are asking themselves is ‘Will removing Arafat will have positive or negative consequences?’

Noah Millman, again:

“One more thing: the expectation that, with Arafat in exile, a more moderate leadership could take the reins is almost certain to be disappointed. Anyone who directly challenged Arafat’s supremacy would risk assassination at the hands of the Fatah Tanzim. So I do not expect anyone to be willing to assume leadership of the P.A. in Arafat’s absence or after his violent demise. The most likely outcome of Arafat’s expulsion - or his arrest, or his assassination - would be the re-imposition of the Israeli occupation, including the full civilian administration. At this point, I do not see a plausible alternative to doing that. But if you want to know why Israel continues to hesitate, THAT is why - they do not want to reimpose the occupation, with all the costs and obligations and diplomatic consequences that entails.”

“The most likely outcome of Arafat’s expulsion - or his arrest, or his assassination - would be the re-imposition of the Israeli occupation, including the full civilian administration. … [I]f you want to know why Israel continues to hesitate, THAT is why - they do not want to reimpose the occupation, with all the costs and obligations and diplomatic consequences that entails.”

Would all that ensue if he died accidentally in, say, a car crash? Then why can’t he be made to die, let’s say, “accidentally, in a car crash”?

“But if you want to know why Israel continues to hesitate, THAT is why - they do not want to reimpose the occupation, with all the costs and obligations and diplomatic consequences that entails.”

Ok, that clarifies things. But if the Israelis are not willing to take back control of the territories,—which would be the consequence of their expelling, arresting, or killing Arafat—then what was their recent vote to expel him all about? There’s a vulgar expression I learned in high school for what the Israelis are doing to themselves right now.

Unadorned, before the vote yesterday, maybe not. But now even if Arafat dies choking on a pretzel it will be seen as an Israeli plot. Noah is quite right—there is no room for a more moderate leader to replace Arafat. Maybe there never was. And I do not think that the Israelis mean to exchange Arafat for someone worse. That leaves the option of occupation.

Mr. Auster, I will quote from Noah Millman again because he also wonders what the vote was about:

“But I have a question for the Israeli cabinet, which has now voted to expel Arafat without setting a date for such expulsion: what is the point of this posturing? What “signal” are you trying to give? If Arafat must be removed, the “signalling” only gives him time to maneuver; it accomplishes nothing, and is even counter-productive as it makes Israel look indecisive. And if Arafat can be “signalled” into behaving, then the case for expelling him at all falls apart, and Shimon Peres should be made Prime Minister. The cabinet seems to be losing touch with reality, “trying” to expel him without actually doing so.”

Thanks to Thrasy for the further quote. In fact, what I said and what Millman said is what I thought when I first heard this morning (I hadn’t read the news yesterday) that the Israeli cabinet had voted to expel Arafat—but had not actually preceded to do so! So what the heck are they doing? Looking to give opportunities to world anti-Israel opinion to attack Israel some more?

The Israelis are beaten down and shellshocked, and so they’re not able to rise to the level of moral and logical arguments any more, the way an Abba Eban or even a Benjamin Netanhayu used to do. They just muddle through from day to day.

One reason there is no room for a more moderate leader is that any “Palestinian” in his right mind would prefer to be a citizen of Israel. That leaves only fanatics to devote their lives to the creation a separate Palestinian state.

Putting Arafat on trial has a certain plausability, as he is indeed guilty of serious crimes. But his presence represents a continuing mortal danger to innocent Israelis, thus justifying a ‘hit’ to save lives.

Contrary to what 1 or 2 here have said, I think the comparison to Arafat and Hitler is entirely valid. Who here would still be criticizing Gen. Von Stauffen if his bomb had taken the Fuhrer out, thereby stopping the Holocaust not to mention saving millions more who died during the war?

Trying to pooh-pooh the comparison based on raw numbers is ridiculous. Arafat’s mentor, the Grand Mufti Sheik al-Husseini, was a friend and ally of the Fuhrer, who raised the only non-German SS troops out of Bosnia and made radio propaganda speeches to the Arab world on behalf of the Third Reich. Hitler in return promised to help him exterminate the remaining Jews in the Holy Land.

Arafat has said several times that he considers himself following in the footsteps of the Grand Mufti. For goodness’ sake, an Arabic translation of Mein Kampf is selling quite well in Arab countries, and has been on the top-ten bestselling list among the ‘Palestinians.’ They’re cut from the same cloth.

Arafat is bin-Ladan is Arafat. Shoot Arafat now!

“Putting Arafat on trial has a certain plausability, as he is indeed guilty of serious crimes. But his presence represents a continuing mortal danger to innocent Israelis, thus justifying a ‘hit’ to save lives.”
Posted by: Joel on September 13, 2003 09:35 PM

assassination is a very slippery slope into nihilism. i’m surprised that those who advocate western civilization are so quick to throw it away with both hands.

I see Arafat not as a Hitler but as a Robert Mugabe. Someone like that, though not a Hitler, nevertheless merits the kind of end justly meted out to Ceaucescu and Mussolini and which should have been dealt to Idi Amin Dada, Fidel Castro, Khieu Sampan, and others I could name. (I didn’t cite Khieu’s even guiltier colleague Pol Pot because that end WAS meted out to him, by his former associates who bumped him off so he couldn’t finger them in war crimes involvement during upcoming trial testimony it was feared he might be obliged to give. Those associates put out the story that he died suddenly of a heart attack but many observers including Henry Kissinger said he was almost certainly bumped off by them because of the danger he posed as a potential witness.)

If some prefer to capture Arafat and hold him so he can’t order more bombings, let them hurry up and do it. Aren’t we holding former Panamanian head of state General Manuel Noriega in prison in Florida, partly in the same spirit?

Thomas Friedman’s article in the New York Times makes the same point as Mr. Carpenter’s that “any ‘Palestinian’ in his right mind would prefer to be a citizen of Israel.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/opinion/14FRIE.html

Friedman writes: “Rather than create the outlines of a two-state solution, this wall will kill that idea for Palestinians, and drive them, over time, to demand instead a one-state solution — where they and the Jews would have equal rights in one state. And since by 2010 there will be more Palestinian Arabs than Jews living in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza combined, this transformation of the Palestinian cause will be very problematic for Israel. If American Jews think it’s hard to defend Israel today on college campuses, imagine what it will be like when their kids have to argue against the principle of one man, one vote….

If the Israelis were building a fence around the West Bank, and then removing all the checkpoints inside, it would make great sense. But they can’t, because the West Bank Jewish settlements also have to be protected — hence the fences and checkpoints all over the place, which are choking commerce and creating cages that will become factories of despair. As Palestinians find themselves isolated in pockets next to Jewish settlers — who have the rule of law, the right to vote, welfare, jobs, etc. — and as hope for a contiguous Palestinian state fades, it’s inevitable that many of them will throw in the towel and ask for the right to vote in Israel.

Khalil Shikaki, a Palestinian pollster, has already found 25 to 30 percent of Palestinians now supporting this idea — a stunning figure, considering it’s never been proposed by any Palestinian or Israeli party.”

If Israel’s wall succeeds, Israel will have killed itself.

The Palestinians will eventually decide as a people that they wish to share in the prosperity of Israel. The demand for the extension of suffrage is one that no Western nation has been able to resist in a hundred years. South Africa will be the model for Israel’s future. Once the Palestinians become Israelis, then demographics and democracy will dispatriate the Jews from Israel. And at the same time, the Europeans will be finding themselves dispatriated from their own native lands.

The solution to Thrasy’s dilemma is clear: humane expulsions sweetened with financial inducements. Does he have the cojones to say so? To not say so is to acquiesce not only in the end of Israel according to the starkly alarming vision he foresees and lays out, but the end of the white-Euro-derived nation-state everywhere on the face of the earth. I for one don’t plan on being phased out so easily — not me; not my nation-state: sorry, everyone, but … uhhhhhh … that’s a non-starter. Think up some other plan, Thrasy. If expulsions and repatriation are the only alternative, let’s get cracking on those.

Abby said, “i’m surprised that those who advocate western civilization are so quick to throw it away with both hands.”

I would cut off both hands to save it if I had to.

What part of ‘war’ don’t you understand? More Israelis have been killed in this latest ‘intifada’ than were lost in the Six Day War! And most killed in this war weren’t even soldiers. Shooting Arafat is the least that Israel should have already done.

When there’s a war going on that’s what you do to the other side until they are subdued. What? Was Jael throwing away civilization when she drove a nail through the head of Sisera? Was Ehud on a ‘slippery slope’ when he plunged the knife into King Eglon’s fat hide? Was the Prophet Samuel being ‘nihilisitic’ when he took a sword and cut the Amalakite King Agag to pieces?

Permitting Arafat to breathe this long is what is truly nihilistic. Or are the innocent women and children who, with his enablement, have been ripped to shreds by shrapnel and nails to be considered sacrificial lambs laid on the altar to preserve Western Civilization from ‘real’ barbarism?

Western Civilization recognizes exigencies. Western Civilization is not about committing slow suicide — at least not until recently. This smacks of a restless pacifism, truly nihilistic.

Actually I may need to correct my figure on the number of those killed. In the Six Day War, Israel lost 776 soldiers in fighting. I think that the number exceeding that includes Israelis killed since the Oslo accords, not just those since Sept 2000. Apologies for the misstatement.

Some very powerful statements by Joel and Unadorned. If the Friedman article proves anything, it’s the absolute need to remove the Palestinian Muslims to Jordan, whether they live in the “occupied territories” or in Israel itself. Israel will cease to be Israel if Friedman’s liberal idea of granting citizenship to the Palestinians ever comes to pass. In other words, the genocidal goals of Arafat and his clique would be accomplished through flooding Israel with Arab Muslims instead of slaughtering the Jews all at once. South Africa offers a very good parallel: the remaining whites (who haven’t had the sense or money to leave) are gradually being exterminated. To this traditionalist mind, this would be the greatest crime of all. Likewise for the nations of Europe (even the French - as much as I hate to admit it in their case). The Israelis will have to make the hard choice about whether they wish to survive as a nation or not - as will the European nations and the USA. Does Mr. Friedman really believe the fantasy that Israel can exist as a popositional nation? At least he is more consistent in his liberalism than many of the neocons.

I would like to point out to Carl that Friedman is making a prediction of what he thinks will happen, not what he thinks should happen. In his article, he makes clear that he thinks it is a bad idea on Israel’s part.

And to Unadorned, expulsion would be a grand solution to the problem. But if the Israelis had the will to expel the Palestinians, they would certainly have the will to keep up some form of Apartheid.

And perhaps they might be able to. The Jews have been able to maintain themselves as a separate people for a very long time. But that was the power of the world’s oldest monotheistic religion. The power of the great religions of Moses, of Christ, and even that of Mohammed seem to be waning these days. There are other things that now compel the minds of men.

Kudos to Joel on his statement of 11:53 p.m.

I don’t understand Friedman’s logic at all. He wrote: “Rather than create the outlines of a two-state solution, this wall will kill that idea for Palestinians, and drive them, over time, to demand instead a one-state solution — where they and the Jews would have equal rights in one state.” Why would separating Arabs from Jews lead to the merger of Arabs and Jews in one state? Also, Friedman assumes that the Arabs at present do accept a two-state solution, when in fact they have never had any goal other than a one-state solution—Palestine from the Jordan to the sea.

Also, while I’ve never been able to figure out exactly where Abby is coming from (except Pluto perhaps? :-) ), her latest statements, calling the proposed killing of Arafat “nihilistic” give me an idea she shares the “traditionalist Catholic/libertarian” position we’ve heard here from time to time. That is, Catholics who affirm traditional morality yet oppose any strong actions by the state, including what others regard as legitimate and necessary acts of self-defense.

Thrasy wrote,

” … [E]xpulsion would be a grand solution to the problem. But if the Israelis had the will to expel the Palestinians, they would certainly have the will to keep up some form of Apartheid.”

That doesn’t follow.  Jews are very moral, while apartheid is immoral and saps the will of a moral people to maintain.  Separateness on the basis of separate countries isn’t immoral. 

Neither are repatriations and expulsions when humanely carried out.  As Steve Sailer discusses here,

http://www.isteve.com/kosovo.htm ,

there is good ethnic cleansing and bad.  The good kind is done humanely, stops perpetual killing and wars which there is no other way to stop, and has everything to recommend it.  You pay some people in this village to move their homes, families, and belongings a few villages away to where there are primarily folks like them, and you pay some people in the other village to move in reverse.  If no takers, increase the price being offered until there are willing takers and everybody walks away happy. 

Cost?  There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever but that “good ethnic cleansing” is cheap in the long run compared to the complications that inevitably surround perpetual wars and terrorist killings.

Thrasy wrote,

“The Jews have been able to maintain themselves as a separate people for a very long time. But that was the power of the world’s oldest monotheistic religion. The power of the great religions of Moses, of Christ, and even that of Mohammed seem to be waning these days. There are other things that now compel the minds of men.”

“There are [things other than preserving their ethno-culture intact for present and future generations] … that now compel the minds of men.”  Yes, but only of Western men.  Do you see the Japanese government mounting a program for changing the population completely into Mexican, Somali, Pakistani, ethnic Chinese, and Muslim by actively encouraging the most massive incompatible immigrations that can conceivably be undertaken in the shortest possible time (so there won’t be enough time for the Japanese public to mount an effective opposition until it’s too late to undo it) and calling every Jap who questions that policy “racist”? 

No, Thrasy, only the U.S., Canada, Australia, and the ancient nations of Europe and Israel are crazy enough to be doing that.  You don’t see Japan, China, India, Black Africa, Latin America, or the Muslim world anywhere on the planet doing that. NOBODY — apart from the Judæo-Christian West — is THAT weird, trust me.  

When discussing whether the Israelis have the political will to effect this or that solution to the dangers posed by hostile domestic aliens, we should reflect on our own failure, as a nation, even to admit we face similar dangers.

“When discussing whether the Israelis have the political will to effect this or that solution to the dangers posed by hostile domestic aliens, we should reflect on our own failure, as a nation, even to admit we face similar dangers.”

The situations are not parallel. America has— much too little and too late, but not insignificantly—been rounding up illegal Muslim immigrants and other Muslims who may pose a danger. As for our general immigration population, as destructive as they may be to the historic American identity, they are not seeking to kill us, as the Arabs are the Israelis; and one of the main things about liberal people is that they can only recognize a danger coming from an immigrant population if it takes the form of actual physical violence. Cultural threats they are unable to recognize. Which, by the way, fits the modern, Lockean consciousness, doesn’t it? Since society according to Locke is only formed for the purpose of avoiding violence, and not for any higher purpose or cultural purpose, therefore only actual violence is recognized as a threat.

I am suspicious of demographic predictions: like the frequently heard assertion that Europe will be Islamic in a couple generations.

Now that _may_ well happen, but the thing is hardly inevitable. Europe has faced some grim times before, remember? Is today any worse than, say, the fifth century, after Rome fell and the barbarians (how could imagine then that they would be converted?) were smashing civilization everywhere? Or recall that the Turks nearly captured Vienna in the 1690s, and held Spain for centuries.

I admit with qualification that a civilization, like Europe, reveal PROFOUND spiritual decadence when it simply cannot undertake the basic human project of propagating its own kind; when it, in short, has grown too selfish and full of self-doubt to bear the burden of raising children. What I am unconvinced of is that ultimate dissolution is inevitable.

The same goes for Israel. It’s demographics are bad, but they need not translate into collapse.

Paragraph 2, sentence 2, above: “WHO could imagine” …

And paragraph 3, sentence 1: “I admit WITHOUT qualification” …

I need to be more careful.

reposting: “With the recent terrorist attacks, some have suggested that the leaders of these terrorist organizations be assassinated for the good of all people. What would be the Church’s teaching on this?”
http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/01ws/ws010927.htm

While reading through the article, think about whether or not assassanating Arafat falls under the requirements.