Arafat adviser calls for kidnapping IDF soldiers

[drdon326]

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1059361967544

Ahmed Jbarra, the veteran Palestinian prisoner who was released by Israel on the eve of the Aqaba summit in Jordan last month, has called on Palestinians to kidnap Israeli soldiers in order to exchange them for the Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

According to the Hamas-affiliated Palestine Information Center, Jbarra who served 28 years of a life sentence for murdering 14 people when he planted a booby-trapped refrigerator in Jerusalem's Kikar Zion in 1975 was speaking at a Bethlehem rally held in his honor on Sunday night. The report said he "indirectly" urged Palestinians to abduct IDF soldiers.

Jbarra, 68 and better known by his nom de guerre, Abu Sukkar, was appointed earlier this month as Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's special adviser on the issue of the prisoners.

According to the center, he told the rally that there would be no peace or security for Israel without the release of all the prisoners.

.......................................................

murderer and now extortionist.....

not too surprising.

[Equinox]

1. Not really, drdon.

Considering the fact that these soldiers are on "foreign" territory. It wouldn't be any different then if the FBI nabbed a foreign combatant on our own soil. I don't condone this. I'm for peace, however, you can't complain about this and yet Israel can nab anyone they please in Israel proper and the OT.

[GabysPoppy]

2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but

Are you saying then it is proper for the Palestinians to go into Tel Aviv and snatch a member of the IDF? You seem to infer that.

Are you also implying that all of Israel is "foreign" territory?

Are you also implying that the IDF by arresting a known terrorist is conducting an illegal operation?

And if I can assume you read the article posted that you approve of the appointment of a convicted murderer as an aide to Mr. Arafat concerning the issues of prisoners. I would think the appointment of this person in that position is akin to * appointing Jeffrey Dahmer to be in charge of the kitchen and menu for the WH.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. I'll correct you....

Not even that article mentioned it was about going into Israel and seizing Israeli troops. Did you bother reading the article? If you did you might have noticed that the good ol' Jerusalem Post said: 'The report said he "indirectly" urged Palestinians to abduct IDF soldiers.' Fucked if I know what the report actually said, but seeing as how you were only recently in another thread telling everyone not to believe everything they read, I'd prefer to read the report for myself and not blindly believe everything the Jerusalem Post tells me...

Violet...

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

21. Violet?

Did you read that? I think we discussed this a while ago. Here it is: the IDF is a terrorist organization

No, it is not. The vast majority of IDF members are not terrorists.

[Equinox]

23. Neither are the vast majority of Palestinians.

A member of the IDF or a Palestinian that engages in terrorist behavior is a terrorist.

I also question the motives of the GOI just as I would question the motives of Hamas and IJ.

[Darranar]

24. Agreed completely

n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. However

Can you say the same about the vast majority of the armed Palestinians who oppose Israel?

[Equinox]

39. My answer was already posted before you asked the question.

Please re-read my post if you fail to understand. Truly absorb what was said in the post. If you are unable to get what I meant from it, then I suggest using a dictionary or have a friend help you.

[the_sam]

45. Yes

First of all, Palestinians have the right to take up arms to oppose the occupation. This right is enshrined in international law.

Numerous Palestinian armed groups, including Fatah and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, target only soldiers and paramilitary settlers. That's guerrilla warfare, not terrorism. In addition there are factions within all Palestinian political groups that are against attacks on Israel, even Hamas.

[the_sam]

43. Disagree

The IDF routinely engages in tactics that certainly qualify as terrorism, as well-documented by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, and others.

The kill ratio in the Al-Aqsa intifada has been 3 Palestinians to each Israeli (4 Palestinians if you don't include soldiers). With the technology that Israel possesses, that much "collateral damage" would defy the laws of physics. We therefore come to the conclusion that either: a.) Israel is responding disproportionately or b.) Israel is deliberately killing civilians to intimidate the Palestinians. Cases of both these types of actions happening have been documented many, many times.

While individual IDF soldiers may not want to engage in terroristic activities, they follow orders to do so. And it's beyond dispute that many Israelis hold racist attitudes.

[Darranar]

44. Incorrect...

A large number of those dead Palestinians are terrorists or helpers of terrorists. Since the exact number of those is not known, those ratios cannot be perfectly accurate.

[the_sam]

47. Ah, tautology bombs

Who does Israel attack? Terrorists! How do we know they're terrorists? Because Israel attacks them!

Even if true (again, all credible human rights groups would beg to differ) as law professor Arnold Chien notes, "An action taken with a purpose to kill is no more culpable than an action taken with some other purpose in mind but with knowledge that a death will probably result. Blowing up an airplane to kill a passenger is equivalent to blowing up an airplane to destroy a fake painting and thereby to defraud an insurance company, knowing that the passengers will be killed. Both are murder."

Israel is very frequently guilty of disproportionate response, and often guilty of murder to intimidate. Human rights groups know this because many of those killed in rock-throwing demonstrations died from direct shots to the head.

It amazes me that people can try to make the argument that Israel's only retaliating. Have you forgotten what the kill ratio in the first intifada was? 10 Palestinians to every Israeli!

[Darranar]

48. Some of those deaths are no doubt accidents...

Others are not. Considerable numbers of IDF soldiers do commit terrorist acts, and they should be condemned. Israel as a whole does not.

[Equinox]

51. We know the "I was just following orders defense"

:eyes:

[newyorican]

8. LOL, this should be interesting

Well, with all due respect to the position the poster holds temporarily, that is some rather pathetic and unintelligent commentary. It is rife with Strawmen arguments, which are usually preceded with "Are you saying..." or "So what you mean is...".

****

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

http://www.home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/disinfo.htm#Use%20a%20straw%20man.

****

As I said, this should be interesting, though one has to wonder about the uptick in little green footballing around here...hmmm.

[Equinox]

22. You can assume and infer all you want.

I stated my position in my previous post.

First, I regard the OT as foreign to Israel. I have company. Almost every nation does besides Israel.

[GabysPoppy]

32. You also said

"Israel proper" - That is the reason for the question.

[Equinox]

33. Here is what I said....

...yet Israel can nab anyone they please in Israel proper and the OT.

Emphasis on the word Israel (meaning agents of Israel - Shin Bet or Mossad or civilian) can nab "suspects"

[GabysPoppy]

35. Thank you for the explanation

eom

[Equinox]

40. You're welcome.

I guess it was just a misunderstanding.

[the_sam]

46. It's Legitimate Military Tactic

The Israelis and Palestinians exist essentially in a state of civil war. They're attacking enemy territory because it's tactically advantageous to do so. There's nothing terroristic about it.

If they kidnapped civilians, it would be different.

[bemildred]

6. Abu Sukkar

Interesting name, I'm sure the pun is unintentional.

It would be interesting to know what the "report" actually
said, but not interesting enough to look it up.

I must say this fellow doesn't sound like part of the solution.
OTOH kidnapping for ransom is better than an immediate hot-lead
injection.

[Wonder]

13. but not interesting enough to look it up

lol lol lol...

and definitely not interesting enough to continue on down through this thread. I will leave it at this laugh and go back to LBN.

[Herschel]

7. When I am asked why the occupation

I remember articles like these.

[newyorican]

9. You mean that *illegal* occupation?

Yes. I only see irony at complaints about Palestinians "illegally" on Israeli soil taking on Israeli military targets. Don't you see the irony?

[vierundzwanzig]

11. Ditto

ironic indeed.

I would have to underline that if the source was properly quoted it would not refer to the IDF but IOF (Israeli Occupation Forces).

The phrasing makes me suspicious.

The Jerusalem Post does not exactly have a great track record in reporting the truth. Remember when they ran the story on the chemical weapons plant that was discovered in Iraq? That story also went around the world.

Might as well take Fox News as an authoritative source of information.

[Wonder]

14. two words on Jerusalem Post's track record in regard to truth...

Richard Perle!

[Herschel]

20. The Palestinians have no concern

Coming to Israeli soil. It is a deterrent to peace. Let their efforts be on the terrorists. Israel is in other territory to defend itself. You know the difference.

[Equinox]

25. The IDF has trouble with "terrorists"

How do you expect the PA to deal with them?

Remove the occupation and you remove the reason to resist. Israel's defense shouldn't entail the unilateral and arbitrary confiscation of land. That will not make Israel secure. Furthermore, if Israel wishes to continue to exist and perhaps exist in peace, she would be wise to stop this horrendous exploitation of the Palestinian's weakenesses and adhere to international law. The consequence could mean that even the US wouldn't be able to help her out.

[Darranar]

28. Many of the terrorist groups...

view every inch of Israel as the occupation. When the occupation is removed and the Palestinian state declared, a joint security plan with cooperation and exchange of information by both sides should take care of those extremists.

[Equinox]

29. I agree.

However, just as many Palestinian terrorist groups do not acknowledge Israel's existence, so too does certain elements of the GOI when viewing the OTs. Likud charter for one, not to mention the more radical parties to the right of Likud.

This is clearly a two way street. The time for demonizing one side while hailing and praising the other is done.

[Darranar]

30. I was afraid of that...

when I posted. I felt that I had not accurately mentioned both sides. You are absolutely correct. I agree.

[the_sam]

49. There is no difference

The Israelis were occupying the territories 20+ years before suicide bombing started.

[Herschel]

38. There is no comparison

The Israeli military does not target civilians. Palestinians militants seek to murder. You know the difference.

[tinnypriv]

10. "indirectly"

LOL. More Jpost agiprop.

[Gimel]

12. Local language

in local jargon, as in every language,it shouldn't be too hard to understand an "indirect" order. A kidnap murder was carried out this week, so I guess they understood what he was saying.

Edit to add link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=2963&mesg_id=2963&page=

[Wonder]

16. I find it interesting

That when a term like "indirect" is used in regarding to an Arafat order per se it is considered written in gold, and taken very seriously.

On the other hand when it is suggested that perhaps various orders are "implied" by Sharon to the IDF or IOF, as another poster called it, rather than documented (which many have been throughout Israeli history) that suggestion seems always to be considered ludicrous, and immediately brushed to the side as not possible or plausible in the least. Why is that I wonder?

[Gimel]

17. Implied or indirect. which is it?

Ahmed Jbarra, the veteran Palestinian prisoner who was released by Israel on the eve of the Aqaba summit in Jordan last month, has called on Palestinians to kidnap Israeli soldiers in order to exchange them for the Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.
<snip>
...was speaking at a Bethlehem rally held in his honor on Sunday night. The report said he "indirectly" urged Palestinians to abduct IDF soldiers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=2943&mesg_id=2943&page=

Speaking at a rally is different from giving commands. Sharon is not the commander in chief, and his defense minister Mofaz would be the one to give orders, or the Chief of Staff Ayalon.

Since when does the IDF act on "implied" orders from Sharon?

Perhaps you are think of the Philangists. They are not under Sharon's command.

[newyorican]

18. A distinction without a difference...

"Implied or indirect", that is... :shrug:

[Equinox]

26. Interesting how you brought up Philangists.

They operated on implied and indirect orders from Sharon. A massacre occured as a result. :eyes:

[Gimel]

31. Indirect responsibility

this does not mean that any order or any communication was given. In fact, the assessment is that he did not do enough to stop the massacre. You have jumped to sonclusions based on a single word which you've applied to another situation. That is irresponsible.

[Equinox]

34. It's not irresponsible.

And btw, it's relevant. If he had not said a word (which you and I don't know for sure), he's still culpable. I believe their waiting for him at the hague.

No, nothing irresponsible about my post. You mentioned Philangist and I mentioned the indirect or implied orders given by Sharon. Implied could mean to suggest that "we won't stop you if you kill everyone."

Why do you defend Sharon? Aren't we on the same team here?

[Gimel]

41. Only pointing out

the fallacy of your arguments.


Edit: oops... spelling

[Equinox]

42. No fallacy....

Do you defend Sharon or not?

Simple question.

[Gimel]

50. Simple answer

No. I am not an attorney. Sharon must defend himself.

[Equinox]

52. Nice evasion...

Spin Spin Sugar - make it hard or soft or easy.

Look, I'll ask one more time. Are you defending Sharon's actions past or present? I'm talking about rhetorical defense. We both know we are not in a courtroom. I know I'm not an attorney. I'm glad (hardy har har) that you're not.

Simple question posed again for the last time. Are you defending Sharon?

If the answer is anything but no, then well......

[Forkboy]

15. People have said this is a war to legitimize their opinions

when innocent Palestinians have been killed,so fuck it,the IDF is a legitimate target in a war.

[StandWatie]

19. I was thinking the same thing today..

I was mowing the lawn thinking about the demand that anyone who had used "violence" could never be released even if it was violence against soldiers and the only thing I could think of for a bargaining chip was to take some people who had used "violence" on Palestinians and use them as bargaining chips.

[Equinox]

27. I believe that there is a procedure with regard to what you posted.

That deals with IDF soldiers going into operations with the understanding that they will be shot by their own rather than have the possibility of them being used as negotiating chips. I can't remember the name of the policy. Perhaps, someone can help me?

[StandWatie]

37. I don't know..

I do know that back in the early 60's Israel had soldiers captured in Lebanon (I have no clue what they were doing there) and in order to secure their release they forced a Lebanese civilian plane to land in Israel to use them as hostages.