Arafat

[Cartman]

After 911, the US intervention in Iraq, the inability to capture Osama etc etc, what is going to happen should Arafat die? Will there be a strong resurgence of violence and terrorism throughout the globe?

[August1991]

What a guy, Arafat. Abou Ammar. His wife is a Palestinian Christian, I believe.

All things considered, I'd say he is the Fidel Castro of the Palestinians.

Cartman, you've started a good thread with some good questions.

[Guest eureka]

I find it difficult to know what I think. There could be chaos amongst the Palestinians as there is no apparent leadersip structure to take over. Or, there could be an easier resolution from a less entrenched authority.

I tend to feel that Israel will try to take advantage of the vacuum in a way that will not be positive for a permanent settlement. If that happens, then there will be more terrorism from an even more frustrated and despairing people.

I am not optimistic but I do believe that common sense could use this to beneficial purposes.

Unfortunately, the two manin players, Bush and Sharon, have given no sign of the possession of that faculty.

[Cartman]

Has Arafat kept the lid on things more often than not, or did he stir up more problems than he solved? My fear is that more radical leaders may take his place and consider global terrorism to be on the political agenda.

[caesar]

I hope he shocks everyone and revivies. I think he has mellowed in his later years and was willing to work for peace. His death would not be attributable to the Israelis; so I see no reason for rioting. I understand that he is very very wealthy and there could be much infighting between his advisors and family over his money.

I understand Israel is attempting to make arrangements to allow him to be buried in the gaza strip and that other Palestinian leaders could be bussed through Israel.

One of my customers was visibly upset when she saw his pictures and the headlines and thought he had died; she is a Jewish lady.

If the Palestinians are smart; they will come up with one strong leader; then Israel and the USA will no longer have any excuses to not work out a settlement with that leader.

[caesar]

This is an interesting story on Arafat's and Palestinian money that may be too closely intertwined.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...MNGU49NGHN1.DTL

[CdnRepublican]

Arafat was a terrorist that looted international money and corrupted the entire concept of Palestinian statehood. He should have been assassinated years ago. He is and was an obstacle and is just another corrupt criminal gang leader praying on people, the UNO and the good will of NGO's to divert hundreds of millions of dollars into his own accounts, while he orders 17 yr old kids to commit homicide bombings.

There is nothing good to say about such a creature except - die and die slowly. Apparently the rumors are he is stricken with Aids. In any event i hope his death is painful.

Arafat wants his people to believe that creating a Palestinian state is costlier than they realize and that he should not have to publicly clarify the many expenses involved in creating the new state. According to Mohammed Rachid, Arafat's former economic adviser, it is estimated that Arafat had over $300 million dollars in his possession in order to create jobs, improve the medical facilities and help put food on people's tables. One need only view the poverty and lack of services in the West Bank and especially Gaza in order to see that funds were not allocated towards these ends. This raises the big question – why did Arafat not use the PA's revenue in a way that would benefit all Palestinians?

The answer is quite simple. If the socio-economic conditions improved in Gaza and the West Bank Arafat would have a very difficult time maintaining the idea that Israel is "oppressing" the Palestinian people. Improving economic conditions in the disputed territories would possibly lead to a lessening of Arafat's control over Palestinian affairs, and as his self-preservation at all costs attitude demonstrates, Yasir Arafat is more interested in maintaining control than improving the Palestinians' situation. Moreover, the rise of hope produced by improved conditions in the territories would cause an immediate drop in the rational for terrorist activities against Israeli civilians. As long as the Palestinian people view peace as something prevented by Israel Arafat can continue cultivating the hatred needed to perpetuate the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

No doubt he is a terrorist, a murderer, a corrupt and immoral man. Good riddance.

[caesar]

Some feel the same about Bush. ll depends of where you live and what you read.

[Tawasakm]

Some feel the same about Bush. ll depends of where you live and what you read.

That seems a specious argument. There are people who may believe the world is flat based on where they live and what they read (or what their oral history tells them).

If you believe that Arafat is NOT a terrorist then I would love to read your arguments against and your supporting data.

If this seems a little harsh then please realise that it is not intended in such a fashion.

[caesar]

If you believe that Bush is not killing thousands of innocent people without just cause. Prove it.

Just from different countries and Bush has more prolific weapons.

[caesar]

Terrorist/ gueriila fighter or freedom fighter. It is all in the eye of the beholder. Even different arms of the USA government do not agree.

Different arms of the U.S. government have sometimes disagreed about who qualifies as a terrorist. When South Africa was under white supremacist rule, the Department of Defense considered the antiapartheid African National Congress a terrorist group, while the State Department disagreed. Perceptions of individuals or groups can also change over time; at different moments, U.S. officials have treated PLO leader Yasir Arafat as both a terrorist pariah and a partner in peace negotiations.

[Tawasakm]

  If you believe that Bush is not killing thousands of innocent people without just cause. Prove it.

I am not arguing that Bush is or is not killing innocents. In fact if I was I'd be completely off topic.

I am suggesting that your statement regarding Bush does nothing to address the specifics involved as to whether or not Arafat should be considered a terrorist. I am asking you to support what I have construed to be your opinion relating to the topic of this thread.

If I have not been clear in this then please forgive me.

[Tawasakm]

I seem to have made my previous post seconds after you made your addition Caesar.

Thankyou for providing some further information to support and clarify your position.

[Cartman]

Let us assume that Arafat is a terrorist. If he dies, might they not have an even more radical leader? He and others claim that he is a moderate compared to many others in the general movement. Is it inconceivable that they work with Osama at some level and spur on global terrorism? My fear is that Arafat's death will lead to more terrorist acts against the US especially with Bush in office for four more years.

[caesar]

I am not arguing that Bush is or is not killing innocents. In fact if I was I'd be completely off topic.

Not really. American, obviously over 50% think he is a hero; the rest of the majority of the world does not approve of his actions (including many many Americans). He is believed to be committing war crimes by many. It all depends on where you are and what information you get and where your sympathy lies. Whether his actions are fighting terrorism or promoting terrorist recruitment.

[Tawasakm]

OK Caesar I understand the example you are using. I understand the argument that such things are a matter of perspective. What I am asking you to tell me is what your perspective is and why that is.

Your argument, I feel, is a little weak as it stands. Its fine to talk about differing perspectives and relativity but please tell me what has led you to your current perspective. Exactly what is it about Arafats actions and the actions of those he interacts with that would lead you to your conclusion? What is your conclusion. I may be erroneously supposing that you do not believe him to be a terrorist.

Lastly please don't conclude that I am arguing against you. I have not actually stated a position pro or con I am merely asking for more information from you.

[caesar]

It is not too much Arafat's actions that have made me take a second look at things. It is the aggressive uncalled for actions of Bush that has got my attention. I then came to understand how the USA has been unfairly protecting Israel from taking responsibility for and to be strongly encouraged to end the vast list of human rights violations from that country.

The invasion of Iraq was a big mistake and based on fraudulent information which was exposed PRIOR to the invasion whilst Iraq was still cooperating with the weapons inspectors.

I think it was Ramsey Clark, former attorney general of the USA; and his views of the first Gulf War that really opened my eyes and got me searching.

Then the incident of Pakistan pardoning its scientist for selling nuclear technologies and parts to :rogue nations" without out a peep from the USA that really shocked me. In fact, a few short weeks later; the USA made Pakistan a favoured ally and allowed to purchase modern weapons from the USA??????????

[Tawasakm]

OK let me see if I understand your argument Caesar. To my mind it boils down to this: you have come to the conclusion that those you had previously thought were good guys are in fact bad guys - and as a consequence it is quite possible that those you had thought were bad guys are, in fact, good guys.

Is that representative of the essense of your rationale?

If it is I could argue that you may be leading yourself into potential error in that regard. You clearly have good facts and arguments to back up your conclusions regarding Bush and his government. Without taking sides I can see clear justification for your perception of him as a 'bad guy'. However I don't believe that you can logically conclude that your value judgement of others is necessarily wrong as a result. Those that you had previously considered to be "the bad guys" may still be the bad guys. Or, in another words, Bush being bad doesn't stop Arafat being bad.

I will take this all back if it turns out you have the same body of evidence for this value judgement concerning Arafat as you do for Bush.

[caesar]

I am not saying if Arafat is good or bad; I am sure there is a bit of both in him. I understand more where the Palestinians anger is coming from. I don't think Bush or Sharon gave him an honest chance to reign in the "terrorists"., That would not be as easy as it would be for an organized army. Not all of the "terrorist" organizations recognize his leadership.

In fact, he may be guilty of ripping off the Palestinians; hard to really know what to believe anymore. Heavy propaganda and wild speculative rumours coming from both sides.

[caesar]

I should state that the information I have showing bad faith on the part of the USA in dealing with the Israel Palestinian disputes started well before Bush JR at least as far back as Bush Sr. He just took it up a few notches and was very pushy and arrogant throughout. Bush Jr didn't disappoint me as I never did like him but he did shock and anger me. Besides all the "collateral" damage (thousands of dead Iraqis) he has sent young men and women to die fighting a battle that had no just cause and did not involve protecting American soil or Americans. How many young people on both sides are dying needlessly.

[Tawasakm]

I decided to go back and look at the topic of the thread again

After 911, the US intervention in Iraq, the inability to capture Osama etc etc, what is going to happen should Arafat die?  Will there be a strong resurgence of violence and terrorism throughout the globe?

.

Ok here is where I get a problem Caesar

Besides all the "collateral" damage (thousands of dead Iraqis) he [bush Jnr] has sent young men and women to die fighting a battle that had no just cause and did not involve protecting American soil or Americans. How many young people on both sides are dying needlessly.

That seems off topic to me. Don't get me wrong here - I agree with you about Bush and Iraq and other things. But I don't think it fits the question. You are, I think, attempting to extend the question. It might now seem to be: if Arafat dies will there be a resurgence of terrorism because Bush invaded Iraq?

I agree, broadly speaking, with your points concerning Bush and previous US governments/presidents but what has any of it to do with the affect of Arafats death?

[CdnRepublican]

Caesar represents the equivocating left

I am not saying if Arafat is good or bad; I am sure there is a bit of both in him. I understand more where the Palestinians anger is coming from.

This is a very sad statement. Clinton met this terrorist more times than other world leader during the 1990s. Chirac finds it important to visit this dying terrorist on his deathbed in Paris than to meet with Allawi the President of an emerging Iraq. The Western media feted this man as the Che Guevara of the Palestinian cause, ignoring the murderous, corrupt regime that destroyed lives on both sides, presided over by this Egyptian terrorist.

This is immorality writ large.

Arafat has murdered Jews, Westerners and even his own people. He has murdered as many or more Palestinians then Jews while accumulating millions in personal funds and corruption. He is no more than a criminal gang leader intent on ensuring the destruction of everyone but himself as he accumulates power and money.

I find Caesar and left liberalism's moral equivalency over this man sickening.

We lack the space to record all of the blood on Arafat's hands, but the highlights include the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich, the 1973 murder of two American diplomats in Sudan, the 1974 killing of two dozen Israeli schoolchildren in Maalot, and the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro in which Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly American in a wheelchair, was thrown overboard. His more recent legacy is the suicide bomber, turning young Palestinians into weapons targeting civilians. Over the years, Arafat has been responsible for killing far more Palestinians than Israelis, especially any "moderates" who dared to promote a non-terrorist strategy.

The CBC and leftist media love this man - this says alot about the mental rot of the so-called elite.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Source?

[Tawasakm]

I find Caesar and left liberalism's moral equivalency over this man sickening.

I wouldn't want to consider the morality of Caesar's position in such a fashion. As far as I understand his argument relating to Arafat he is saying that both sides are doing the wrong thing and in such a climate he finds it hard to pick out who should be considered the "bad guy".

Where I think his aguments are hitting difficulties is that he seems to be seeing through "Bush tinted glasses". I find his attitude toward Bush justifiable (although I am personally somewhat more moderate and specific in my views on the man) but I think in his reaction to what he sees he is... seeing it everywhere. All paths seem to lead back to Bush and then a criticism of him. Personally I feel if you ignore that part of his argument you can see that his argument has some substance. There are bad guys on both sides involved in the ongoing conflict.

Of course I may be reading his argument wrong. If t turns out to be some kind of "he's not as bad as Bush so he's not bad" argument or a "they're all acting that way so how can any of them really be bad" argument then I couldn't support it.

In fact I should really shut up and hear what Caesar has to say for himself. Why don't I do just that?

[Cartman]

I began this thread because I have read elsewhere (years ago and I have no current link) that Arafat kept the lid on Palestinian frustration. There were/are people scrapping for power in order to puruse a more radical direction to this movement. My understanding is that he was at least open to some dialogue with the US and Israel while these radicals want nothing of the sort.

Let us assume that compared to these people, he is a moderate. Think of other events that have transpired just before/since his severe illness and possible death.

1. 911 demonstrated that the US can be attacked physically and economically by terrorists.

2. Osama has demonstrated an ability to carry on terrorism and evade capture.

3. Israel has not exactly inspired hope amongst the Palestinians.

4. Bush has been re-elected and has traditionally supported Israel's position on this matter.

Conclusion? Regardless of what you think of the man or what should be on his tombstone, I predict an increase in global terrorism. The people he led will become more frustrated and angry. While Arafat at least met with world leaders, the runners up will increasingly see global terrorism as a viable political tool.

Arafat's death = more terrorism and heightened security in the West.

Maybe I am reading more into this than need be, but I got a bad feeling that things are going to get much worse after his death.

The first problem will be where he is allowed to be buried.