Try Not to Murder Anyone This Week

|

Over the weekend, Yasir Arafat condemned Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians. Well, not quite, but he did say they wouldn't be prudent at this juncture.

"Attacks against civilians have severely harmed our cause in the international arena and in Israeli public opinion," he said. "As the Israeli election date is getting closer, we appeal to all our people to practice self-restraint."

After a long career of terrorism, Arafat finally has realized that murdering innocent people is bad for your image. Not only is his statement notably lacking in moral judgment, but his wording suggests that deliberately shooting little children and blowing up teenagers in cafes are lapses similar to overindulging at the dessert buffet or having one beer too many.

NEXT: First They Came For the Smelly People

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You are taking the tenuous stance that Arafat actually has control over the anti-Isreali terrorists. I don’t think that’s true. Nor do I think Arafat has control of the PA beyond his line of sight. The only power Arafat has is the power to annoy Sharon, which is why he remains Palestine’s “leader”. Like two crumbling pillars leaning against each other, Sharon and Arafat are mutually supporting. Remove one and the other will have nothing to keep it standing.

  2. What a grotesque, digusting monster this fellow is. And Xmas, if the guy has no control over his people, why on earth would he even bother opening his mouth to utter such a vile statement? If it was an attempt at, ummm, statesmanship I don’t think it really did the job. Maybe I’m oversensitive but Xmas, if someone said it’s best not to murder your relatives this week – but OK next week, I guess you’d be pretty peeved.

  3. It’s amazing that Israel can still be condemned by many even after the PA leadership tacitly supports terrorism with statements like this.

  4. Xmas, I think it would more proper to say that Arafat could have an affect but chooses not to.

    At least some observers (Jim Dunnigan for one) have pointed out that a “serious” effort by Arafat to control the radical Palistinian groups would result in civil warfare. So Arafat would rather piss off the Israelis than fellow Palestinians.

    Given the generally favorable light cast on terrorist actions by certain groups, Arafat’s strategy is no surprise. He is _not_ a statesman.

  5. >>After a long career of terrorism, Arafat finally has realized that murdering innocent people is bad for your image. When will Fully Engaged Team Bush realize same about collateral damage?

  6. I seem to recall a poem about riding a tiger…

  7. “It’s amazing that Israel can still be condemned by many even after the PA leadership tacitly supports terrorism with statements like this.”

    Israel remains vulnerable to criticism because the Palestinians actually do have a case in regards to the continued occupation of their land (land the Israelis actually seized from Jordan and Egypt, not the Palestinians, but those countries have ceded their rights to the territory at this point in favor of the Palestinians, who of course lived there all along). The case is this: If the territories are part of Israel, then Israel is a state in which half the population is barred from citizenship (ie. voting rights and elementary legal protections). If the territories are not part of Israel, then Israel is engaged in an illegal occupation. Either way the status quo is unacceptable. The problem is that Palestinian strategy (terrorism) seems intentionally designed to make any kind of negotiated progress impossible. Cui bono? Arafat?

  8. To be fair, I often hear pro-Israel people making the same sorts of statements — arguing for not killing civilians on political or prudential grounds rather than for the obvious moral reasons.

  9. I would be more upset at Arafat if he pretended to humanitarian concerns. Renouncing terrorism for pragmatic reasons is about as good as it is going to get!

  10. Arafat didn’t renounce terrorism, he said (essentially) that it was a poltically unwise strategy leading up to an election that pits a hardliner (Sharon) against someone who want’s to back out of the settlements and talk about things.

    Wanna bet what happens after the election? Same shit as now.

  11. This is not a left or right issue with attendant talking points. This is us – our governments -about to kill innocent people. What’s worse, then we know our leader will deny it or lie about it.

    Like media-trained Snow Geese, our skeptical common sense has flown South for the winter following an armed Predator drone.

    Rummy is fucking with bad Ch’i when he starts to diss his own top General’s war plans and their reluctance to wage war. Rummy is disturbing the order of Sun Tzu’s natural structure of good government.

    Where do Blair, Bush and Howard think we are living? Sierra Leone? Why don’t they hand over what they have or know about Iraq’s WMD, and stop pussy footing around?

    They don’t want to avoid a war with Iraq, because it is about control of Iraq’s oil, which Fully Engaged Team Bush says is one of our vital national interests, worth killing innocents to protect.

  12. ausyankee, Careful! Someone may report you to Tim Blair for a spanking.

  13. You’ve got that backwards. It was criminal Texans that murder Mexicans and then demanded their own country. Eventually, Texas became part of the US.

    But I see your point.

  14. ausyankee:

    Show me the money!!

    Err, I mean, show me the proof. Whenever I analyze the situation, the only outcome of not attacking Iraq is at least a nuclear conflaguration.

    And isn’t this thread about Israel?

    So back to that, ausyankee, you should read all of the UN documents pertaining to the subject. I believe Israel has been more than willing to cede any territory before the Six Day War for some semblence of peace.

    And as for seizing the territory, hmmm, be annhilated or pre-emptively attack. You decide which one you would choose.

  15. “war for oil” bleats the sheep!

  16. I’ve had the opinion that Arafat lost control of the situation once Isreal started blowing up PA police stations and bridges before the Intifada started. Nothing undermines a leader more than when his citizen’s live in fear.

    And fear is the cause of this situation. The Palestinians fear the Israelis. They fear them because they view the Israelis as unstable and violent neighbors whom the Palestinians are powerless to stop. That is why you have young men and women strapping explosives to themselves, they are striking back at the source of their fears.

  17. Xmas, you’re kidding, right? The State of Isreal has been under attack or the threat of attack since its inception. The “occupied territories” should belong to Israel by right of conquest. They whipped a larger, more powerful aggressor fair and square. Arafat and the Palestinians have been waging war on Israel for about 30+ years. This is about the annihilation of the State of Israel and their right to exist. I think it is reasonable, from an historic standpoint to accept that Israel has a right to that territory at least as much as most other countries have a right to their.s

  18. This is about criminal Jordanian, Syrian and Lebenanese nationals who cross borders to threaten citizens of Isreal. This is about Jordanian, Syrian and Lebenanese nationals that are so violent and uncivilized that they have been expelled by their home countries.

    I am not pro-Isreal, but I wonder how I would feel if Mexican refugees suddenly called for the destruction of the United States and started murdering random people in the Southwest.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.