The Jerusalem Post took a strong editorial stand today, calling on Israel to kill Yasser Arafat:
"The world will not help us; we must help ourselves. We must kill as many of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders as possible, as quickly as possible, while minimizing collateral damage, but not letting that damage stop us. And we must kill Yasser Arafat, because the world leaves us no alternative."
The Post writes that Arafat prevented Abbas from combating terrorism, and "the new prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, clearly will fare no better, since he, if anything, has been trying to garner more power for Arafat, not less." The paper then explains why expelling Arafat would not work: "he will be as much or more of a problem when free to travel the world than he is locked up in Ramallah," especially in light of the fact that the U.S., Germany and France will not boycott him. "When the breaking point arrives," the paper concludes, "there is no point in taking half-measures. If we are going to be condemned in any case, we might as well do it right. Arafat's death at Israel's hands would not radicalize Arab opposition to Israel; just the opposite... Arafat does not just stand for terror, he stands for the refusal to make peace with Israel under any circumstances and within any borders. In this respect, there is no distinction, beyon d the tactical, between him and Hamas."
"The world will not help us; we must help ourselves. We must kill as many of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders as possible, as quickly as possible, while minimizing collateral damage, but not letting that damage stop us. And we must kill Yasser Arafat, because the world leaves us no alternative."
The Post writes that Arafat prevented Abbas from combating terrorism, and "the new prime minister, Ahmed Qurei, clearly will fare no better, since he, if anything, has been trying to garner more power for Arafat, not less." The paper then explains why expelling Arafat would not work: "he will be as much or more of a problem when free to travel the world than he is locked up in Ramallah," especially in light of the fact that the U.S., Germany and France will not boycott him. "When the breaking point arrives," the paper concludes, "there is no point in taking half-measures. If we are going to be condemned in any case, we might as well do it right. Arafat's death at Israel's hands would not radicalize Arab opposition to Israel; just the opposite... Arafat does not just stand for terror, he stands for the refusal to make peace with Israel under any circumstances and within any borders. In this respect, there is no distinction, beyon d the tactical, between him and Hamas."