Arafat Dies

[Lisa Denton]

Another fact is that despite the always-present US veto, there is no nation on earth in violation of more UN resolutions than Israel.

Everyone has the right to live.

I totally agree. (Everyone has the right to live.)

Israel has always yanked around and fucked with the U.S. while accepting military hardware and promising to use it only for defense.
Israel has always yanked around and fucked with the U.N. whom they feel, rightly so, would do little or nothing to prevent the extermination of every Israeli man, woman, and child.
Israel has always said (Everyone has the right to live.)

Perhaps they are biased. (WTF)

It may have something to do with the fact that they so often hear (Every Israeli must die.)

 

[Lauren Hynde]

 

[scheherazade_79]

Unlikely. No Arab power has ever had much success against Israel. Bush has shown he will back Sharon to the hilt. Syria is without a sponsor after the fall of the USSR. And we have already indicated we think they possibly allowed WMD's and Iraqi wanted to cross their borders. I seriously doubt they will risk provoking the GWB light show in Damascus for the sake of the Paelestinians. Even without fear of U.S. intervention, the Israeli's would wipe the floor with them and their best chance of getting out with anything approaching dignity would be U.N. intervention, where we, the U.S. hold a veto on the security Council.

-Colly

Possibly, but there's not a snowball's chance in a hot place that the Muslim world will sit back and watch while the Palestinians get walked over. The resistance may or may not be state-sanctioned, but it will be there.
Fear isn't an issue for Muslim extremists these days. It makes no difference that they're facing an 'enemy' who outnumbers them and has more sophisticated technology at its disposal. These are people who'll fight to the death for what they believe in - as we see in the scores of suicide missions both in the Middle East and nearer to home.
Of course, the US and Israel will always win - it's the way our world turns. But victories aside, the world is going to be a far darker place if inflexible prima donnas are left to take centre stage and dictate the course that events take. The US and Israel need to start listening to the rest of the world.

 

[jeanne_d_artois]

Some of The Earl's facts are questionable - the link between the establishment of the state of Israel and Suez 1956 isn't as he says.

What is true is that the UK behaved badly after WWI towards their Arab allies (and Lawrence of Arabia who had fought beside them).

Israel was created against UK wishes by pressure from the US (and USSR as part of other land deals in Europe). Israeli freedom fighters (or terrorists depending on your point of view) together with US pressure led to the creation of a Jewish state from Palestinian land. The Palestinians resented losing their houses, land and property to form Israel and fought when they could. They lost because Israel had powerful backing from the US that the Paletinians couldn't match or buy because most of their assets had been transferred to Israel.

The Jews were killed in great numbers in WWII but NOT by the Allies (although Stalin's role in reducing Jews in Russia is doubtful). The state of Israel was to provide a country for the Jews. The Palestinians were chosen by the Allies as the people who had to give up part of their country to form Israel.

Two wrongs do not make a right. The Jews had many martyrs. Now the Palestinians had lost land and their homes. When they fought back with allies who would fight to the last Palestinian, not the last ally, they lost even more land and more homes. Now Israel had blood on its hands.

From there on there have been wars between the Arabs and the Israelis. Whoever was fighting, the Palestinians ended up with less and less until they decided to copy Israel's early tactics and become 'freedom fighters' aka 'terrorists'. That is the classic tactic for the country that is militarily weaker. Israel responded to each attack with heavy weapons. Now both sides have thousands of martyrs and generations of hatred.

Yasser Arafat was a 'terrorist' or 'freedom fighter'. So were many of the government of Israel in their early years. We in the UK dealt with Israeli Prime Ministers who had assassinated British soldiers.

Whatever Arafat was, or was not, he was a potent symbol to the Palestinian people of their refusal to be defeated. Whether he could actually deliver peace was dubious because of factions within Palestine. What was certain is that peace without Arafat would be impossible.

Arafat tried hard for peace. So did many Israelis and Sadat of Egypt. There have been many good people who have sacrificed everything to try to bring peace between Israel and her neighbours and to correct the wrongs committed by both sides.

Arafat should be remembered as a man who tried to represent his people to the world; who tried for peace even when his compatriots were stabbing him in the back and his opponents were stabbing him from in front. He risked a lot for peace. That he didn't succeed is his tragedy. It would be worse if he was remembered by the lies told about him. The truth was bad enough. The lies made him out to be a monster that he never was and he wouldn't have had as much support as he had, if he had been the monster that he was supposed to be.

I hope that his death might give another chance for peace. It is a faint hope.

Og (as jeanne)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Possibly, but there's not a snowball's chance in a hot place that the Muslim world will sit back and watch while the Palestinians get walked over. The resistance may or may not be state-sanctioned, but it will be there.
Fear isn't an issue for Muslim extremists these days. It makes no difference that they're facing an 'enemy' who outnumbers them and has more sophisticated technology at its disposal. These are people who'll fight to the death for what they believe in - as we see in the scores of suicide missions both in the Middle East and nearer to home.
Of course, the US and Israel will always win - it's the way our world turns. But victories aside, the world is going to be a far darker place if inflexible prima donnas are left to take centre stage and dictate the course that events take. The US and Israel need to start listening to the rest of the world.

Israel deals pretty well with insurgents. They just kill them in droves. Support for the Palestinain cause has fallen off not only among Arab governments, but among people (witness a report on the Ap not long ago that the PAL authority was having trouble paying it's workers because the donations were down since the advent of 9/11.) The "arab street" may come out and burn flags and shoot off guns and wail, but I don't forsee a huge increase in martys coming to die for the PAL, most of those hard core enough to feel that way have issues in their own countries they are more devoted to.

The U.S. won't back down from support of Israel. Not as long as a republican is president and it would be only slightly more likely if a Democrat was elected. By and large, everytime the world rams through another general assembly vote condemning Israel for retaliating and not saying anything about the terroist act that precipiatted it, the impression here hardens in favor of Israel.

You probably can't understand this, but it is a curiously American trait to pull for the underdog and to get up in arms when things seem unfair. I know protypical good ole boys, the kind who would most likely ridicule an orthodox jew if they met one on the street who are passionate supporters of Israel. They respect a small nation that is out numbered, surrounded, and still manages to kick ass. If the world is really concerned about helping the Palestinians, they would be well advised to quit being so blatantly biased to them and willing to ignore thier bloody hands.

Every time the UN passes a resolution decrying Israeli "atrocities" and ignoring the suicicde bomber who blew himself up on a bus or the Hammas militants who killed two toddlers with a rocket and percipitated the retaliation, you pretty much cement in the mind of the average joe in the red states that you are just pissed because you backed the wrong horse and they got their butts handed to them, yet again.

Our media is going to give us an extremely biased view and good or bad, most people don't care enough to go look it all up. The view here can be prety well summed up in Palestinian = Terrorist = Bad : Israel = kicking terrorist butt = good. If the world wants to break the paradigm that produced that perception, a little moderation on thier part is neccessary.

Consider:

We see footage of giref stricken Isaelis when a bus bomber strikes. Then we see the U.N. trying to censure Israel for killing innocencts in a rocket attack aimed at a Hamas militant leader, without saying a thing about the Militant who detonated that bomb? If they were trying to censure both, it might get more sympathy, as long as they are fixated on blaming Israel for everything over there, they are beating their heads against a pretty solid wall of U.S. public opinion. Considering how we choose our presidents, it would be the rare individual indeed to buck that public sentiment and side with the Palestinians.

-Colly

 

[Lisa Denton]

Israel deals pretty well with insurgents. They just kill them in droves. Support for the Palestinain cause has fallen off not only among Arab governments, but among people (witness a report on the Ap not long ago that the PAL authority was having trouble paying it's workers because the donations were down since the advent of 9/11.) The "arab street" may come out and burn flags and shoot off guns and wail, but I don't forsee a huge increase in martys coming to die for the PAL, most of those hard core enough to feel that way have issues in their own countries they are more devoted to.

The U.S. won't back down from support of Israel. Not as long as a republican is president and it would be only slightly more likely if a Democrat was elected. By and large, everytime the world rams through another general assembly vote condemning Israel for retaliating and not saying anything about the terroist act that precipiatted it, the impression here hardens in favor of Israel.

You probably can't understand this, but it is a curiously American trait to pull for the underdog and to get up in arms when things seem unfair. I know protypical good ole boys, the kind who would most likely ridicule an orthodox jew if they met one on the street who are passionate supporters of Israel. They respect a small nation that is out numbered, surrounded, and still manages to kick ass. If the world is really concerned about helping the Palestinians, they would be well advised to quit being so blatantly biased to them and willing to ignore thier bloody hands.

Every time the UN passes a resolution decrying Israeli "atrocities" and ignoring the suicicde bomber who blew himself up on a bus or the Hammas militants who killed two toddlers with a rocket and percipitated the retaliation, you pretty much cement in the mind of the average joe in the red states that you are just pissed because you backed the wrong horse and they got their butts handed to them, yet again.

Our media is going to give us an extremely biased view and good or bad, most people don't care enough to go look it all up. The view here can be prety well summed up in Palestinian = Terrorist = Bad : Israel = kicking terrorist butt = good. If the world wants to break the paradigm that produced that perception, a little moderation on thier part is neccessary.

Consider:

We see footage of giref stricken Isaelis when a bus bomber strikes. Then we see the U.N. trying to censure Israel for killing innocencts in a rocket attack aimed at a Hamas militant leader, without saying a thing about the Militant who detonated that bomb? If they were trying to censure both, it might get more sympathy, as long as they are fixated on blaming Israel for everything over there, they are beating their heads against a pretty solid wall of U.S. public opinion. Considering how we choose our presidents, it would be the rare individual indeed to buck that public sentiment and side with the Palestinians.

-Colly

Your right Colly, any american president, repuplican or democrat, is going to back Israel.

A couple months ago I read a story and cried, for two days I found myself constantly thinking about it.

I did the research, found the story in an arab news-site with an arab slant. The brave "freedom fighters" picked out the target. Managed with a burst of gunfire to knock the "enemy vehicle" off the road and approached and opened fire with automatic weapons at close range to kill the "enemy."

It did have more about the freedom fighters, the towns they were from and how they were killed shortly after in a firefight, than what had been in the american press or the international press.

I am just one of those arrogant, wacky fuckin americans who will never be convinced that this sort of thing is justified. Or that the freedom fighters who do this sort of thing are even classified as fighters let alone freedom fighters.

Oh BTW, pehaps I should mention the enemy vehicle was a station wagon and the enemy was a pregnant woman and her four daughters, youngest age two.

The arab slanted story did not have the photo of the bloody child car seat being pulled from the wreckage. Instead a "hero" photo of the two freedom fighters posing with weapons.

 

[sweetnpetite]

thanks colly. thats about what was explained to me... though most likely a bit less slanted. im going to read up on this as now i can see it a bit clearer.
*HUSG*
and a grin
v~

I didn't pipe up about it, but I was just as lost as (if not moreso than) vella.

thanks Colly.

my info comes slanted to, (against palistine and arafat) personally, I don't mind the slanted info as long as I have access to info slanted to the other side. (ie, explain why both sides feel that this or that was right or wrong and how each side interprets what happened.)

Sometimes totally unslanted leaves you just as confused as before.

In Colly's synopsis (quite good) I didn't notice what your slant was. I'd love to know and then I'd love to hear the other side so I can figure out what my opinion is about all this.

to vella the brave, and colly the patient.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I didn't pipe up about it, but I was just as lost as (if not moreso than) vella.

thanks Colly.

my info comes slanted to, (against palistine and arafat) personally, I don't mind the slanted info as long as I have access to info slanted to the other side. (ie, explain why both sides feel that this or that was right or wrong and how each side interprets what happened.)

Sometimes totally unslanted leaves you just as confused as before.

In Colly's synopsis (quite good) I didn't notice what your slant was. I'd love to know and then I'd love to hear the other side so I can figure out what my opinion is about all this.

to vella the brave, and colly the patient.

My slant? I would say I am fairly pro israeli. I don't see killing innocents as freedom fighting, I see it as murder.

That said, I am not as reactionary pro Israel as I once was. The great Oggsbashan is someone you should badger for his take, he has enlightened me greatly on the history involved and it does make a difference.

Israel is defending itself. As long as it's citizens are dying in the streets and in night clubs and in malls, they have no real choice but to retaliate. At the very basic level, would you support a government that didn't try at least to protect you? Hamas and the majority of the Arab world, refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a state. That would seem to make negotiation impossibly difficult. The average palestinian supports hamas and islamic Jihad. Organizations like that could not exist without the tacit support of the people. Characterizing them all as terrorists is within bounds.

On the other hand, Israel occupies Palestine. How would we react if Mexico occupied Texas or Canada took new York? We would fight I think, and do all we could to make it hard on them.

I don't think either side has a claim to being "right". I think they are both operating on assumptions that are flawed. There is so much hate there now, so little trust, so much bloodshed, I don't think they can find a peaceful solution. I think anyone who goes in there and tries to broker a peace is insufferably arrogant or childishily optomistic.

Of course the Europeans and rest of the world have a point. If we, the U.S. would just abandon Israel and let them have there way, there would be peace of a sort. They would apply crippling sanctions to force Israel back behind the blue line. And when the Arabs attacked them again, would shrug their shoulders. Wait till the IDF was winning and send in peace keepers to restore the status quo. Realistically, if the U.S. abandons them, eventually the Arab states will prevail, then you would have peace. I don't see us doing that.

If peace comes it will come only from within. It will take Palestinians recognizing they can't kick the jews out, for better or worse they have to live with them. They will have to renounce terrorism and work with the Israelis on a peace. From the other side, Greater-isreal is a lie. The hard line biblicals will have to accept the old testamnet mandate from god isn't going to come to pass in the modern age. They will have to make themselves approach a peace with at least the hope they can trust. They are going to have to remove settlements and strictures and end the occupation. basically remove the military threat that hangs over the whole of Palestine.

I don't think any of us will see peace there in our time. You are most likely going to see Isreal standing guard behind its wall, ever wary and occasionally conducting punitive raids into a rump Palestinian state when Terrorists manage to get behind the wall.

I wrote a story recently, set against the back drop of the conflict. In it my two characters both leave the mid east and come to a Separate peace with both their personal history and the history of their countries. In my opinion, it will take a mass of people, on both sides, all coming to a separate peace with it, before a collective peace has any real chance of success.

Hope I haven't bored ya to tears

-Colly

 

[oggbashan]

Colly,

I must correct one thing in your last post.

Most Arab states now recognise Israel's right to exist and have done since President Sadat of Egypt's peace mission.

Some of their people may not recognise that right but their governments do. Saddam Hussein was the exception. He wanted to attack Israel because to him Israel and the US were one and the same. Many 'freedom fighters' still think that way. They can't reach the US: they can reach Israel.

As I see it the real problem in the Middle East is that the extremists know they can keep peace from happening by heaping atrocity on top of atrocity. As long as they do that, and the other side responds in kind (It doesn't matter if the extremist is Palestininan or Israeli) then they can claim they are 'defending' their people and that they are necessary. The extremists don't care about the victims or the deluded attackers. All they care about is keeping the power they have - that power comes from fear of the other side.

I cannot distinguish between freedom fighters and terrorists. Israel was built by Israeli 'freedom fighters' killing just as Palestinian 'freedom fighters' do now. During WWII we in the UK and the US trained and equipped 'resistance movements' in occupied Europe. The Germans thought of the resistance as people now think of 'terrorists' - fighting a war against soft targets and not caring who died.

Og

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly,

I must correct one thing in your last post.

Most Arab states now recognise Israel's right to exist and have done since President Sadat of Egypt's peace mission.

Some of their people may not recognise that right but their governments do. Saddam Hussein was the exception. He wanted to attack Israel because to him Israel and the US were one and the same. Many 'freedom fighters' still think that way. They can't reach the US: they can reach Israel.

As I see it the real problem in the Middle East is that the extremists know they can keep peace from happening by heaping atrocity on top of atrocity. As long as they do that, and the other side responds in kind (It doesn't matter if the extremist is Palestininan or Israeli) then they can claim they are 'defending' their people and that they are necessary. The extremists don't care about the victims or the deluded attackers. All they care about is keeping the power they have - that power comes from fear of the other side.

I cannot distinguish between freedom fighters and terrorists. Israel was built by Israeli 'freedom fighters' killing just as Palestinian 'freedom fighters' do now. During WWII we in the UK and the US trained and equipped 'resistance movements' in occupied Europe. The Germans thought of the resistance as people now think of 'terrorists' - fighting a war against soft targets and not caring who died.

Og

Thanks oggs. Not too long ago, the Arab league offered a peace plan. As part of that, they all offered to officially recognize Israel's right to exist. I am certainly not gainsaying you, but are you sure about that?

 

[oggbashan]

Yes. The Arab League offered, not the individual Arab states. As I said 'most' already have accepted Israel's right to exist.

Last night in the BBC news I was reminded that Arafat himself had accepted Israel's right to exist as long as they recognised the Palestinians' right to have a homeland. That is one of the reasons why he received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Whether he could actually deliver the agreement of all the Palestinians was always doubtful. He was a symbol but not the all-powerful leader that many outside the Palestinian cause thought he was. He had to be a factor but he couldn't deliver the whole solution.

Og

Edited for PS: To some he was a symbol of the Palestinian struggle. That made him a target (literally at times) for those opposed to any concessions to terrorists. There is no doubt that in the past he had innocent Israeli blood on his hands. However most leaders on the Palestinian and Israeli sides had blood on their hands. Until all the blood-letting is stopped and not forgotten or necessarily forgiven but overlooked in the interest of a peaceful future - then the blood will continue to flow.

 

[oggbashan]

Bump.

The French treated his body as that of a Head of State. So did the Egyptians.

Israel couldn't afford to mention his name. He was their bogey-man; their villain.

Whichever he was, his passing has made a significant difference to the Middle East. For better or for worse? That depends on the reactions of Israel and the Palestinians. If they continue to demonise each others leaders and refuse to talk then God help all of them. They will need His help however they name Him.

Og

 

[rgraham666]

God always answers prayers.

The answer is usually no.

 

[oggbashan]

President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have offered the Palestinians a homeland if they accept democracy.

That could be a poisoned chalice for some who live inside Israel. If they register as Palestinian voters they could be deprived of their rights as inhabitants of Israel where their homes are and where they work. Dual nationality? Whichever form 'democracy' takes there will be problems about deciding who is or is not 'Palestinian' and if they are: do they retain any rights inside Israel?

The solutions to the problem are not as easy as Bush and Blair suggested. Even if the Palestinians accepted democracy, the Israelis would have to accept loss of land, particularly the West Bank settlements, to a new Palestine. I doubt that any Israeli government could do that and survive.

It has been said that 'Politics is the art of the possible'. What is possible between Israel and the Palestinians is very limited by past betrayals and the memory of the blood of martyrs on both sides. There are many powerful figures in both camps who do not want peace. They want the other side to surrender so they can 'win'. That would never happen.

There needs to be a willingness to move on, not just with the politicians, but with the peoples. The politicians in a 'democracy' cannot deliver what the voters are unwilling to accept.

Og

 

[rgraham666]

Therein lies the rub.

Democracy isn't about winning, it's about balance. Balance requires that sometimes you don't get your own way.

Too many people on both sides just want their own way.

So, there won't be peace there for a long time. Except maybe the peace of a graveyard.