Alf Roberts said:
Like the French did? Its blatent US hypocrisy again...
Plenty of recent examples of French "brinkmanship" diplomacy. The Iraq War, European Stability & Growth Pact, Nuclear Testing in the Pacific in violation of International Treaties and Protocols...
You can't hold the US up as the sole example of hypocrisy.
Alf Roberts said:
Yes the motion was a 1 way deal...to try and stop Israel murdering the Palastinian leader or illegally deporting him from his own country. The connection with Hamas is neither here nor there...plus the rest of the World can see that doing either of those things will see a dramatic esculation of violence...and in such a powderkeg part of the World we should all realise where that could lead. Americas action has just opened up this possibility.
No, because as I see it, if the Israelis really wanted to get rid of Arafat, they would do it regardless. But I think even they realise that if he was killed, suspicion would immediately centre on them and they would reap the whirlwind of repercussions.
The Hammas point is entirely relevant, as is anything to do with the PLO. If Arafat is claiming responsibility and leadership for Palestine, and political legitimacy, then it follows that Hammas are a non-sanctioned body and are just terrorists. If Arafat can't or won't clamp down on them, he is either not in charge of his own country, or is willfully refusing to do anything about them. And this means that as long as Hammas suicide bomb schoolchildren on buses, the Israelis will continue to retaliate in kind.
Alf Roberts said:
This sentence could apply to the Israelis just as much as the paramilitaries. Have u seen the Israeli sniper towers in Gaza taking potshots at the locals as they go about their daily business...
I never denied that. But the most recent thing I saw was some suicide bomber blew up a bus full of schoolkids. The Israelis then responded by attempting the surgical strike on the leader of the terrorist body who organised the attack. The Israelis were condemned for this. So what does that tell them? Bombing their Kids is OK, but killing the warrior who did it isn't? How messed up is that?