Arafat = Freedom

That wasn't their conclusion? I just read it again, and it sure looks like it. They said that he should have recognized the danger and either not allowed their entry into the camps, or taken measures to control their actions while they were there.

That's what I was implying. They didn't find that he wsa responsible because of what he did, but because he should have done things that he didn't do.
Do you think I've misinterpreted their findings?

no, I really didn't. Everytime the US starts throwing our weight around in foreign affairs we get shit on by the world at large. Why would you think it would be any different if we start trying to throw our weight around there too?


I understand what you're saying, Helter, and I can't argue semantically, because in that dimension you are correct. However, I don't agree contextually. I think we get shit on because of who we back, not because we pedal our influence.

Perhaphs its more a logistical misunderstanding. Allowing the Phalange militiamen in was not an omission. It was an a action, and was deliberate and with military purpose. What that purpose was depends on who you ask and is still the subject of great debate, but that it was an action was not. This was not failure to secure, this was a joint operation that turned ghastly. The camps were secure, they were totally locked down with no one going in or out, the only exception being of course a cadre of heavily armed Phanalgists. Its not like they just happened by and slipped in while the guards were playing cards. Their entry was coordinated an approved at the highest level.
Sharon (or more properly the IDF command, Sharon personally bears the brunt only as the top of the chain of command) was found indirectly responsible because his actions were such that allowed to the slaughter to take place, but there is no dispute that they were indeed actions prior to the start of the massacre. The omissions only arise out of failure to stop it.

Except, the difference here is that one of the two directly ordered actions against civilians SPECIFICALLY, and the other ordered his pilots to hit MILITARY TARGETS. Arafat's bombers don't give a shit about the Israeli civilians they detonate--they are the TARGET. The US pilots who were bombing Baghdad went in with weapons designed to inflict as little collateral damage as possible--and none of those bombs were AIMED at civilians. There's your difference.


On the whole Arafat thing, I do not disagree. As stated earlier, I'm not sure how it would improve things.

Arafat, murderer of Olympians, is old. He does not seek to go gently into that good night. He desires martyrdom. And Sharon, the butcher who sent Christian Lebanese about their happy tasks in Sabra and Shatila, wants to martyr Arafat. Arafat wants his death to inspire another war against Israel to collapse the Jewish state and Sharon wants another war against Israel to justify exiling or killing Palestinians, as well as to fuel Israeli settlers' ongoing land grab. Arafat's killing seems the only thing the PLO and Likud have in common. These are not political groups interested in peace, and to take sides is certainly a mistake.

On the subject of peace, Friedman wrote an insightful and incisive article on the wall that's being erected in Israel-Palestine. As far as interim progress goes toward the proposed two-state solution, a wall tracing the green line seems like a good idea.

[Edited on Sep 20, 2003 by jakob_sweven]

I very much doubt if Sharon wants another war. That's just silly. I don't doubt for a minute that he wishes Arafat stopped interfering with the peace process by undermining it in every way he can, when out of the eye of the western media.

Sharon is responsible for far more deaths than Arafat in years past~ and lately. but then of course to be fair so is the Shrub.

You just keep telling yourself that. Go Arafat freedom fighter!