Yasser Arafat dies in Paris hospital; age 75. (1 Viewer)

[Ziff]

I am glad that he is gone. He was an autocratic despot who lived the high life whilst his people suffered. He claimed to represent his people, yet, rejected any real notions or pathways to peace. He mixed religious fervour with nationalism which has led us to the current quagmire and terrorist atrocities we see today. I say good riddence, maybe with his passing the Palestinian/Israel question will once and for all be resolved.

I'm not saying that the Israelis have much on their side to show for the peace process either, Ariel Sharon is also a very questionable leader and a man whose character could be endlessly questioned.

For the death of Arafat to be effective the PLO/PA is going to have to become more democratic, they will have to do more to distance themselves from violence and crack down on terrorism and maybe more importantly on Israel's side people such as Ariel Sharon will have to go and be replaced with someone the Palestinians are more likely to trust and respond to in a positive way.

The way I see it, I apportion blame to both sides, both are too stubborn and too hurt by decades of pointless violence to come to an amicable agreement at least thus far in time.

 

[Bone577]

I am glad that he is gone. He was an autocratic despot who lived the high life whilst his people suffered. He claimed to represent his people, yet, rejected any real notions or pathways to peace. He mixed religious fervour with nationalism which has led us to the current quagmire and terrorist atrocities we see today. I say good riddence, maybe with his passing the Palestinian/Israel question will once and for all be resolved.

He lived trapped in a delapedated building for 3 years. For the rest, im bloody tired now, i ahve already covered the rest in previous posts. I'm assuming you didn't bother reading the others since its 6 pages, and you probably would post this if you did.

I'm not saying that the Israelis have much on their side to show for the peace process either, Ariel Sharon is also a very questionable leader and a man whose character could be endlessly questioned.

He is a known war criminal.

For the death of Arafat to be effective the PLO/PA is going to have to become more democratic, they will have to do more to distance themselves from violence and crack down on terrorism and maybe more importantly on Israel's side people such as Ariel Sharon will have to go and be replaced with someone the Palestinians are more likely to trust and respond to in a positive way.

The way I see it, I apportion blame to both sides, both are too stubborn and too hurt by decades of pointless violence to come to an amicable agreement at least thus far in time.

More democratic? Arafat had over 90% support, and thats from memory. I think it was actually 95%+.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

More democratic as in be willing to negotiate with isreal...

Arafat got alot of money from humanitarian organisations, arab nations, the un... where did that go?

 

[Spring Sakura]

For the death of Arafat to be effective the PLO/PA is going to have to become more democratic, they will have to do more to distance themselves from violence and crack down on terrorism and maybe more importantly on Israel's side people such as Ariel Sharon will have to go and be replaced with someone the Palestinians are more likely to trust and respond to in a positive way.

Hmmm, interesting idea...
Maybe if you wish hard enough it just might come true.
Distance themselves from violence? Crack down on terrorism?
So how will they crack down on terrorism? let me guess...they'll bomb them out!
Violence against violence!
Oh wait...but then that would contradict your previous suggestion...didnt you say they should distance themselves from violence?
And how does your mind work exactly? The death of a man that desired peace might not necessarily pave the smoothest way towards peace.

 

[Jezzabelle]

you hear about that father who they are kicking off life support to free up a hospital bed...

in my opinion the father should of had yasser's bed a long time ago...

 

[soha]

you know what i think is stupid
he was born in jerusalem and they say he was born in cairo
i watched a short documentary on his life and the lady goes "yassir arafat claims to be born in jerusalem but most possibly born in cairo"
wtf..they deny him of being born in his own homeland..oh wells
such is life

 

[Ziff]

Hmmm, interesting idea...
Maybe if you wish hard enough it just might come true.
Distance themselves from violence? Crack down on terrorism?
So how will they crack down on terrorism? let me guess...they'll bomb them out!
Violence against violence!
Oh wait...but then that would contradict your previous suggestion...didnt you say they should distance themselves from violence?
And how does your mind work exactly? The death of a man that desired peace might not necessarily pave the smoothest way towards peace.

Arafat was not someone who desired peace. His entire persona and his public character was based around the concept of armed revolutionary struggle for Palestine. Arafat ruthelessly held onto his power, he never named a successor, and never diluted his power out to other people.

Four years ago he had the chance to prove to the world he desired peace. Four years ago he had the chance to agree to a peace deal which would have given the Palestinians about 90% of their demands. It would have essentially ended the violence and a lot of the problems. Now four years on we still have the Palestinian problem which fuels anti-American sentiment in the Middle-East and is as many terrorist groups have said one of their main reasons for their vehement anti-Western and anti-Semeticism.

If the people believe in a real cause, such as democracy, and see democracy actually achieving something for their people, they will be less likely or even unlikely to support terrorism as their main agent for achieving their demands for a new Palestinian nation.

With Arafat gone there's now a chance for more moderate Palestinian leaders to come to the fore, to lessen the influence of groups like Hamas and to finally institute the democratic reforms that were meant to happen under the establishment of the Palestinian Authority over a decade ago.

 

[Ziff]

you know what i think is stupid
he was born in jerusalem and they say he was born in cairo
i watched a short documentary on his life and the lady goes "yassir arafat claims to be born in jerusalem but most possibly born in cairo"
wtf..they deny him of being born in his own homeland..oh wells
such is life

Yes, Arafat was born in Egypt and his strong Egyptian accent was an impediment to him for much of his life. He often had to employ a translator when speaking to "his people" just so that the voice they heard was one of a Palestinian and not of an Egyptian hack.

 

[Bone577]

Arafat was not someone who desired peace. His entire persona and his public character was based around the concept of armed revolutionary struggle for Palestine. Arafat ruthelessly held onto his power, he never named a successor, and never diluted his power out to other people.

Four years ago he had the chance to prove to the world he desired peace. Four years ago he had the chance to agree to a peace deal which would have given the Palestinians about 90% of their demands. It would have essentially ended the violence and a lot of the problems. Now four years on we still have the Palestinian problem which fuels anti-American sentiment in the Middle-East and is as many terrorist groups have said one of their main reasons for their vehement anti-Western and anti-Semeticism.

If the people believe in a real cause, such as democracy, and see democracy actually achieving something for their people, they will be less likely or even unlikely to support terrorism as their main agent for achieving their demands for a new Palestinian nation.

With Arafat gone there's now a chance for more moderate Palestinian leaders to come to the fore, to lessen the influence of groups like Hamas and to finally institute the democratic reforms that were meant to happen under the establishment of the Palestinian Authority over a decade ago.

You obviously didn't read the previous posts. Firstly i will paste something i wrote in response to someone else mentioning the 2000 Camp David meetings.

"Do you even know the nature of the non-official 2000 camp david proposals? I would be very interested in knowing exactly what these "concessional offers" are. As far as i can find anywhere there are no official documentations of it, there were a few unofficial maps published but there is no real sign of any serious deals at all. Even the maps that do exist merit very little attention at all.

For example the first thing to pop up about maps and Camp David 2000 gives you this:
"The details of the proposals are still secret at this time. Israel claims that they were far reaching and generous."

Also take into account that "During the final Barak-Clinton year (2000), the rate of settlement was the highest since 1992, before Oslo, under Sharon." (Chomsky).




It is natural Arafat would walk away, i would hardly call the offer of splitting Palestine into 40 or so "bantustans" using South African apartheid as a model, the annexation of more Palestinian land and the dissalowance of the refugees to return to there lands (all of which are grevious crimes mind you) a "generous" or "concessional". Criminal would be accurate though.



My sources for half of this is:
http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm"


Also i have, 4 times now, mentioned this but some people seem to ignore it.

Resolutions 3314 and 3013 in 1974, legitimised any attack by any group claiming to fight against a occupying power especially of a colonial or racist regime. So the branding of "terrorist" is inccorrect. The two resolutions legitimise Palestinian bombings. It also legitimises Iraqi resistance groups.

 

[Ziff]

General Assembly Resolutions:
Resolution 3314 - Definition of Aggression

Well considering that the actual http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/739/16/IMG/NR073916.pdf?OpenElement Resolution all throughout states that this Resolution is in no way contravening the provisions of the UN Charter and it's main purpose is to promote "international peace and security" WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THE INDISCRIMINATE MURDERING OF CIVILIANS your "justification" for terrorism does not stand. It allows and recognises the "struggle" and the "right to self-determination" which have always been UN precipts. In terms of aggression, it refers to state on state aggression, Palestine is not a state.

Resolution 3013 - International Instruments Relating to Drug Abuse Control:
http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/270/43/IMG/NR027043.pdf?OpenElement

WOW! THIS IS RELEVANT!

---
How about you do some of your own research before you start banging on about BS you ripped off some extremely biased website eh?

 

[Bone577]

General Assembly Resolutions:
Resolution 3314 - Definition of Aggression

Well considering that the actual http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/739/16/IMG/NR073916.pdf?OpenElement Resolution all throughout states that this Resolution is in no way contravening the provisions of the UN Charter and it's main purpose is to promote "international peace and security" WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THE INDISCRIMINATE MURDERING OF CIVILIANS your "justification" for terrorism does not stand. It allows and recognises the "struggle" and the "right to self-determination" which have always been UN precipts. In terms of aggression, it refers to state on state aggression, Palestine is not a state.

This is about the definition of agression. If you will notice Israel is by definition an agressor. Hence under Article 51 of the UN charter (among other things) Palestinians can claim self-defence, and quite rightly.

When the allies carpet bombed Germany, it was under the provision of self-defence, to this day nobody will say sorry about it. The Palestinians have a stronger case than the allies do, yet they are terrorists?

Resolution 3013 - International Instruments Relating to Drug Abuse Control:
http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/270/43/IMG/NR027043.pdf?OpenElement

WOW! THIS IS RELEVANT!

I'm sorry it was 3103 "Basic Principles of the Legal Status of Combatants Struggling Against Colonial and Alien Domination and Racist Regimes".
The link you provided does not work anyway.

 

[Ziff]

Self-defence means fighting within your own nation against an aggressors.

They're PDF files, can be found:
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/28/ares28.htm
and
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/29/ares29.htm

Once again, these two documents only refer to protecting essentially national sovereignty. It does not advocate or allow the use of force by the defenders against the aggressors in the aggressor's home state. When Israel makes incursions into Palestine, such provisions might be allowed, I don't know, I'm not an International Lawyer (yet ) but what you're saying is that the terrorist actions against Israel are legal, I dont' think it says this at all and it would be against the spirit of the UN to allow or support such actions.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes however hamas is killing civilians, people who are not isreali...
They are definately terrorists no matter how you wan't to put it.

 

[Bone577]

Self-defence means fighting within your own nation against an aggressors.

They're PDF files, can be found:
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/28/ares28.htm
and
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/29/ares29.htm

Once again, these two documents only refer to protecting essentially national sovereignty. It does not advocate or allow the use of force by the defenders against the aggressors in the aggressor's home state. When Israel makes incursions into Palestine, such provisions might be allowed, I don't know, I'm not an International Lawyer (yet ) but what you're saying is that the terrorist actions against Israel are legal, I dont' think it says this at all and it would be against the spirit of the UN to allow or support such actions.

Israel is always on an incursion into Palestine. That is the whole problem. That is why the place is under occupation. Settlers are building on Palestinian land. Not to mention Israel is occupying Golan Heights which belongs to Syria. They also occupied Lebenese land and Egyptian. And right now they are building a massive wall effectively annexing more Palestinian land.

Also self-defence can involve going into the enemies territory.


Again i point you to the parallel of carpet bombing of Germany. It was seen as an act of self-defence, while I really don't know too much about the world wars (nor am i really interested) I cannot see how one can be legitimate and the other terrorist.


The spirit of the UN is peace and stability, but it is also there to protect the rights of nations, such as self-determination of self-defence.
Now, while i have said many times before, that i don't condone the action, I am defending it because the Palestinian struggle is the most demonised on earth. My Attitudes are mirrored by Ghandi;
" "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French…What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct…If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs…As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds."

Yes however hamas is killing civilians, people who are not isreali...
They are definately terrorists no matter how you wan't to put it.

Notice parallel with allied bombings. Would you consider that terrorist?
And according to the resolutions, they can't be terrorists, civilians are still Israeli's.

 

[Jordan.J]

The Palestinian question extends back into biblical times and before it.

The Muslim fathers had it most recently.
The Jewish fathers had it first (we're talking ages ago and for thousands of years)

Each claim side claims God gave it to them, each side is so totally entrenched in religion that the policies reflect the religious beliefs.

No. The Jews didnt have it first. Palestine wasnt deserted when Moses arrived at the land

 

[Bone577]

No. The Jews didnt have it first. Palestine wasnt deserted when Moses arrived at the land

"The extended kingdoms of David and Solomon, on which the Zionists base their territorial demands, endured for only about 73 years… Then it fell apart…[Even] if we allow independence to the entire life of the ancient Jewish kingdoms, from David’s conquest of Canaan in 100 BC to the wiping out of Juda in 586 BC, we arrive at [only] a 414-year Jewish rule."

Ilene Beatty, "Arab and Jew in the land of Canaan."

It was there, not for long though, nowhere near as long as the Palestinians. Before the kingdom of Solomon the Canaanites and others.


But the whole thing is a bit rediculous. Imagine a bunch of Romans tried claiming France because there ancestors once owned the land, you would just laugh at them.

 

[Jordan.J]

I'm not saying that the Israelis have much on their side to show for the peace process either, Ariel Sharon is also a very questionable leader and a man whose character could be endlessly questioned.

It is no secret that Sharon was a terrorist. The only difference now is that he has more power and more toys to play with

 

[soha]

Yes, Arafat was born in Egypt and his strong Egyptian accent was an impediment to him for much of his life. He often had to employ a translator when speaking to "his people" just so that the voice they heard was one of a Palestinian and not of an Egyptian hack.

theres a difference in being born somewhere and growing up somewhere
i was born in lebanon but i moved to australia and grew up here
he was born in jerusalem..he said so himself..

 

[Not-That-Bright]

don't u think he might wanna SAY he was born in jerusalem?

 

[Ziff]

theres a difference in being born somewhere and growing up somewhere
i was born in lebanon but i moved to australia and grew up here
he was born in jerusalem..he said so himself..

My bad. I meant that he was born in Jerusalem but grew up in Egypt hence he had an Egyptian accent. He was born in Jerusalem and grew up in Egypt, which makes the rest of what I said make complete sense.

He had an Egyptian accent, so that was an impediment in many of his dealings with Palestinians.