Arafat is dead

[stubeeef]

Personnaly I think he was not a good man. Killed many, took a lot of money, never built a school (so I hear).

I am hopeful a moderate will emerge and peace will come.

[jemeinc]

Yeah, this has potential disaster written all over it... Regardless of anyone's opinions, I think we can all agree that an already unstable situation just got a little more volatile... I'm hoping for the best, but fearing the worst- I hate to say...

[Mechcozmo]

Personnaly I think he was not a good man. Killed many, took a lot of money, never built a school (so I hear).

I am hopeful a moderate will emerge and peace will come.

I agree. Glad that he is dead, only because the people under him are far more likely to want peace than he did. I really hope that peace comes out of this...

[MacNut]

The problem is that those people have never had anyone else lead besides Arafat so it will be interesting to see how they react to a new leader.

[Edot]

The problem is that those people have never had anyone else lead besides Arafat so it will be interesting to see how they react to a new leader.

This conflict has been going on for hundreds of years. I don't know why this would change anything. Not that I don't want it too, but looking at history makes it easy to predict the outcome.

[AmigoMac]

I personally don't know how *good* or *bad* man he was, you know, some news reporters have more tolerance than others... I just hope that it doesn't give a bad outcome to the conflict with israel. as posted above, I don't see a reason why this should change the situation dramatically, but you never know and the hope for the peace in this region is high.

[JFreak]

as a side note, i found it strange that he never blank his eye when he was interviewed - it was so spooky, the man could talk for minutes and not blink even once.

[mouchoir]

I agree. Glad that he is dead, only because the people under him are far more likely to want peace than he did. I really hope that peace comes out of this...

erm... didn't he win the Nobel Peace Prize?

[BornAgainMac]

I was surprised he didn't have a bomb when he died. :rolleyes:

As far as the conflict, if one side was bending over backwards to have peace the other side was still causing problems then I am sure the rest of the world would pick the side that is doing the right thing and help out. This issue of peace would be complete. I feel the pain for both sides of the conflict.

As far as Arafat being dead, I am glad he didn't die from an attack but of natural causes.

[MacDawg]

erm... didn't he win the Nobel Peace Prize?

There was a lot of controversy surrounding that Nobel Peace Prize.

Link here (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_arafat_nobel.php)

Why did Yasser Arafat get the Nobel Peace Prize?

At a ceremony in Oslo, Norway on December 10, 1994 Yasser Arafat, master terrorist, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The prize was awarded jointly to Arafat, Israel's Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres "for their efforts to create peace in the Middle East." The three were granted the prestigious prize, prematurely as it turned out, for their roles in the historic Oslo Accords signed the previous year and their committment to the Peace Process envisioned by the Accords. After generations of warfare and terrorism, it seemed peace was at hand.

The decision to award Arafat the coveted Nobel Prize was based on the belief that he had renounced acts of terror and had become a sincere participant in a true peace process. The Oslo Accords and successor agreements in the Peace Process bound Arafat and his people to recognize Israel's right to exist, to guarantee Israel's safety and security within defensible borders, and to work by a peaceful series of negotiations toward resolution of remaining problems. Nonetheless, Nobel committee member Kaare Kristiansen quit rather than be party to a prize that included Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

But this was all a fiction. Even in 1993 and 1994, with the ink fresh on the peace agreement papers, there was a high rate of terrorism against Israel; seventy-three Israeli soldiers and civilians were killed and more than 100 wounded in 1994, up slightly from 1993. In a preview of the pattern that still persists today, Israeli officials urged the Palestinian Authority to take tougher measures against terrorists and the PA claimed to be doing so even while the terrorism went on and on.

During the 1990's it became abundantly clear that Yasser Arafat was less than fully committed to the peace process, which ultimately failed at Camp David and resulted in the bloodshed of the al-Aqsa intifada starting in September 2000. Groups have come forward demanding that the Peace Prize be revoked, based on Arafat's bad faith, but revocation is unlikely.

[JFreak]

post deleted by jfreak

[arf]

No, what he wanted was what is rightfully that of the Palestinian people; land with borders that were set out by the UN and Israel seems to feel that it can violate whilst the world looks on.

Here (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html) is some good reading for all you people who belive that Israel has the moral high ground in this very sorry affair.



I agree. Glad that he is dead, only because the people under him are far more likely to want peace than he did. I really hope that peace comes out of this...

[sgarringer]

No, what he wanted was what is rightfully that of the Palestinian people; land with borders that were set out by the UN and Israel seems to feel that it can violate whilst the world looks on.

Here (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html) is some good reading for all you people who belive that Israel has the moral high ground in this very sorry affair.

It is only because of the bias of the American media and the United States government that Isreal is portrayed as being the "good guys". It should be noted that the Palestinians were promised their own country at the end of WW II, only to have the land they resided on totally given to Isreal. Palistine is the ones that are simply trying to get their land back, and they dont have the backing of the world to do so. So of course they need to use rebel methods.

[rosalindavenue]

I personally don't know how *good* or *bad* man he was, you know, some news reporters have more tolerance than others... I just hope that it doesn't give a bad outcome to the conflict with israel. as posted above, I don't see a reason why this should change the situation dramatically, but you never know and the hope for the peace in this region is high.

Uhh, Arafat isn't a good candidate for debating if someone is *good* or *bad.* Read the link below for an account of the murder he ordered of the 1972 Israeli Olympic Team. Not to mention the thousands of civilians he's killed, and his evangelism for terror that has been so inspirational to Osama, et al. That comes down as *bad*, even if you are a moral relativist.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_munich.php

[1macker1]

The American media make Arafat looks like the bad guy, while making Israel look like the good guy. Both sides has been wrong, and Sharon *sp* has done his fair share of killing also, he still is. All I wonder is why the US is turning the blind eye to the nukes that Israel has.

[jemeinc]

Yeah, it's Americas fault Arafat chose terrorism- riiiiiiight... lol... The world is better without Arafat... Hopefully, the Palestinians will be the ones to benefit from this, but it's pretty clear he hasn't lead them well in life, & news is surfacing he hasn't set them up well for life after him either... Great leader...Oh well, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter I suppose... To each his own, back to talking about the good things, like everything Apple...:-)

[Sol]

as a side note, i found it strange that he never blank his eye when he was interviewed - it was so spooky, the man could talk for minutes and not blink even once.

Neither does Steve Forbes. I guess the world of politics really opened their eyes.

[arf]

Thanks for making my point for me. 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. This is true, as is the fact that you believe Arafat to be a terrorist, which is due to the biased view that American people and their administration have of the situation.

As for the number of civillians killed my Arafat, this pales into comparison to the numbers killed by Israeli forces using weapons paid for by AMERICAN money. Hang your head in shame America


Yeah, it's Americas fault Arafat chose terrorism- riiiiiiight... lol... The world is better without Arafat... Hopefully, the Palestinians will be the ones to benefit from this, but it's pretty clear he hasn't lead them well in life, & news is surfacing he hasn't set them up well for life after him either... Great leader...Oh well, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter I suppose... To each his own, back to talking about the good things, like everything Apple...:-)

[AmigoMac]

Uhh, Arafat isn't a good candidate for debating if someone is *good* or *bad.* Read the link below for an account of the murder he ordered of the 1972 Israeli Olympic Team. Not to mention the thousands of civilians he's killed, and his evangelism for terror that has been so inspirational to Osama, et al. That comes down as *bad*, even if you are a moral relativist.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_munich.php

That's what I meant, I have no Fu***ng idea / probe of what he did or what he didn't, some people -media- have been tolerant about the situation there, I just wanted to say : I don't care if he is dead or not.

[lalcan]

Requiescat in pace

Without insider information (which we all don't have) we won't be able to know if he was a terrorist or a hero (though i am more willing to believe him to be a nice person fighting the right fight).

But, as for the Nobel prize, didn't they gave the Peace Nobel prize to that very well known world terrorist, innocent killer, modern Machiavelli, Henry Kissinger? lost any credibility since then, if you ask me.

Take a look at this:

http://www.peacelink.it/tematiche/latina/nobel/index.php3

[Foxer]

It should be noted that the Palestinians were promised their own country at the end of WW II, only to have the land they resided on totally given to Isreal. Palistine is the ones that are simply trying to get their land back, and they dont have the backing of the world to do so.

And they were given a country. What we call the West Bank and Gaza were set aside for the Palastinians. These areas were immediately occupied by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, when they invaded Israel at its inception. After this, they were simply incorporated into these countries. It was 20 years later before those territories were conquered by Israel.

I keep wanting to beleive that the reports of renewed anti-semitism in Europe are overblown, but based on what is being said here - and the locales of those who are saying it - I may have been wrong. I guess the expiration date on guilt for genocide is about 50-60 years.

Also, where has the capacity of some people (mainly Europeans, but many Americans as well) to make a value judgment gone? If we can't agree that Arafat was a very bad man, then who was? Will we re-evaluate Hitler and Stalin next? You can say that Arafat was an awful person without commenting on the validity of the Palestinian cause as a whole. I personally support the idea of a Palestinian state, but they've got to get their act together or it will just be another failed Arab kleptocracy. I lived in the Middle East and worked with many Palestinians. They're good people, but they need to rid themselves of this leadership clique bent on throwing rocks and suicide bombings or they will get nowhere.

This is why the Palestian leadership are terrorists and the Israelis are not. Follow closely people. Palestinians target Israeli civilians in civilian areas and use civilians to carry out these attacks. Their leaders hide themselves among the populace, forcing Isreali responses to endanger and, regrettably all too often, kill Palestinian civilians. In short, Palestinians could (if they wished) simply target Israeli military and governemnt targets, but they decided against that. They then put the Israelis in a position of not responding or repsonding in a way that will likely kill civilians. Those are cheap, terrorist, tactics. As bad as human shields and hiding out in mosques.

And don't start on the Peace Prize thing. It counts for nothing. It's almost as meaningless as being honored by the United Nations.

[Moof1904]

Well said, Foxer. Bravo.

[lalcan]

Foxer:

You have such a one-sided version of the history...

So if Jordan and Egypt invade Israel, it gives Israel the Godsend right to do the same to Palestine?

How many generations of germans do you want to hold the stain of the WWII? forever? perhaps a couple of weeks after final judgement? Then, shouldn't USA hold the stain of being the only ones ever to drop a nuke over a city, not military targets, mind you? TV set hasn't told you that, i guess.

You shouldn't judge anyone, you are not here to do it, this guy is dead, he has already been judged by, let him rest in peace, this whole "I'm the good guy and will teach the world the way things are supposed to be" thing won't get you anywhere.

BTW is that Groucho Marx in your avatar?

[pabloman]

Well said, lalcan. I fully agree!

[wdlove]

My prayers go out to his family and friends. May he rest in peace. Sad that he was unable to realize of dream of peace and a Palestinian State. May his death bring on a real push to a fruitful peace.

[sgarringer]

This is why the Palestian leadership are terrorists and the Israelis are not. Follow closely people. Palestinians target Israeli civilians in civilian areas and use civilians to carry out these attacks. Their leaders hide themselves among the populace, forcing Isreali responses to endanger and, regrettably all too often, kill Palestinian civilians. In short, Palestinians could (if they wished) simply target Israeli military and governemnt targets, but they decided against that. They then put the Israelis in a position of not responding or repsonding in a way that will likely kill civilians. Those are cheap, terrorist, tactics. As bad as human shields and hiding out in mosques.


Please explain to me how the Isreali forces bulldozing Palestinian homes, business, and killing everyone inside (without warning mind you) is any different? Perhaps because they're using bulldozers instead of bombs, bulldozers paid for by America? So that makes it OK?

[mactastic]

And they were given a country. What we call the West Bank and Gaza were set aside for the Palastinians. These areas were immediately occupied by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, when they invaded Israel at its inception. After this, they were simply incorporated into these countries. It was 20 years later before those territories were conquered by Israel.

And are still occupied by Israel. Look, there's plenty of blame to go around in this part of the world. Neither side IMHO has the right to claim the moral high ground.

I keep wanting to beleive that the reports of renewed anti-semitism in Europe are overblown, but based on what is being said here - and the locales of those who are saying it - I may have been wrong. I guess the expiration date on guilt for genocide is about 50-60 years.

Indeed. And Never Again was forgotten by the US as well. Just look at Rwanda and Sudan.

Also, where has the capacity of some people (mainly Europeans, but many Americans as well) to make a value judgment gone? If we can't agree that Arafat was a very bad man, then who was? Will we re-evaluate Hitler and Stalin next? You can say that Arafat was an awful person without commenting on the validity of the Palestinian cause as a whole. I personally support the idea of a Palestinian state, but they've got to get their act together or it will just be another failed Arab kleptocracy. I lived in the Middle East and worked with many Palestinians. They're good people, but they need to rid themselves of this leadership clique bent on throwing rocks and suicide bombings or they will get nowhere.

I don't much care for the way Arafat and the Palestinian leadership have gone and done things, and I'm less thrilled with the way the wider Arab world has isolated and used the Palestinians to generate hatred of Israelis and draw attention from those leaders corrupt administrations. But it begs the question, is your opinion of Sharon as bad as it is of Arafat? They have both been involved in some pretty bad stuff.

This is why the Palestian leadership are terrorists and the Israelis are not. Follow closely people. Palestinians target Israeli civilians in civilian areas and use civilians to carry out these attacks. Their leaders hide themselves among the populace, forcing Isreali responses to endanger and, regrettably all too often, kill Palestinian civilians. In short, Palestinians could (if they wished) simply target Israeli military and governemnt targets, but they decided against that. They then put the Israelis in a position of not responding or repsonding in a way that will likely kill civilians. Those are cheap, terrorist, tactics. As bad as human shields and hiding out in mosques.

And don't start on the Peace Prize thing. It counts for nothing. It's almost as meaningless as being honored by the United Nations.

I'm sure that with your knowledge of this issue, you know about groups like the Stern Gang and the Irgun, the story of Deir Yassin, and about the involvement of Ariel Sharon in what happened at Qibia when you claim that only Palestinians target civilians? I'm sure you count all the times suicide bombers have targeted an Israeli bus that soldiers ride (putting military targets amongst the populace) as fair strikes?

As to the tactics, can you say for sure that you wouldn't adopt the tactics of a guerilla war if a superior force invaded and occupied YOUR town? Would you 'fight the good fight' by gathering your forces in such a way that your opponent could systematically slaughter you? Or would you resort to hit-and-run tactics, perhaps even considering targeting civilians because the military targets were hardened against attack?

It's easy to call your opponent out to stand and fight when your side has complete military superiority.

[Foxer]

Foxer:

You have such a one-sided version of the history...

So if Jordan and Egypt invade Israel, it gives Israel the Godsend right to do the same to Palestine? Jordan and Egypt invaded and destroyed PALESTINE. That it what I said.

How many generations of germans do you want to hold the stain of the WWII?
So it's been 50 years now, it's OK to start hating Jews again? ALL people, not just Germans, should NEVER forget what happened. No one alive is repsonsible for those acts, but that doesn't excuse them. Germans and those Europeans that cooperated with them should be especailly mindful of the past.

Then, shouldn't USA hold the stain of being the only ones ever to drop a nuke over a city, not military targets, mind you?

We're not talking about that, but who said that we don't? I don't want to get into this conversation, but is dying by a atomic blast any worse than dying from from an ordinary bomb? Dropping those bombs killed two hunderd thousand -- not dropping the bombs would have resulted in an invasion that would have killed 10 times that many. WWII, in almost every aspect, reached the limits of man's inhumanity to man. But because the US killed civilians doesn't excuse the Nazi's crimes. They're unrelated.

You shouldn't judge anyone, you are not here to do it, this guy is dead, he has already been judged by, let him rest in peace, this whole "I'm the good guy and will teach the world the way things are supposed to be" thing won't get you anywhere.

I strongly disagree. When people DON'T stand up and judge then we'll get what we deserve.

BTW is that Groucho Marx in your avatar?
No

[gekko513]

My understanding of the situation is that Israel has occupied land that they have no right to by any reckoning except their own, and somehow the USA.

That is wrong.

The palestinians have fought back. They have used guerilla tactics and suicide bombers because it is their only option. Nevertheless, they are killing (fairly) innocent civilians.

That is wrong.

Now Israel fight back killing some guerilla fighters but also lots of civilians. Almost as bad as the Palestinians.

I guess there will be no solution until Isreal lets go of the land they have wrongfully occupied or until the Palestinians are almost eliminated.

[gekko513]

Foxer, you're way out of line. No one here hates Jews because they're Jews but we think Isreal is wrong in occupying land that is not theirs and some of us question the way they're dealing with the situation.

[Diatribe]

I say he had his good side and his bad side. And if Arafat was a terrorist Sharon is a war criminal. There are always two sides of a story. I understand both sides.
Besides, technically all the women and men in Israel have served in the Army and can be called up any time(minus the children) and are basically part of the Israeli military. So is it terrorism to kill a soldier off duty but not on duty? (Just something to think about. I am not by any means trying to justify the killing of civilians. But it's odd that one side always seems to make themselves better than they are.)

Oh, and to Foxer:
Why do I need to be responsible for what other people did just because they I have the same nationality? I think it's awful what happened and should be remembered always but I refuse to take responsibility for something I didn't do.
Besides what about the other genocides nobody ever remembers? Those have been forgotten. The Germans actually deal quite well with their history. I would like to see the Americans do the same with all their genocides.
You never hear about the concentration camps the U.S. had for the Japanese, now do you?
As always there are two sides to every story.

To end this post with a quote:

"Those who don't know their past are doomed to repeat it."

[Diatribe]

Another thing that always drives me wild is that you can never critizise Israel without being accused of hating Jews.
What are they? Israelis or Jews? Last time I checked one was a nationality and one a religion but some people seem to be confused by that semantic difference. So if I critizise Iraq I am hating all muslims now or what?

[Foxer]

Why do I need to be responsible for what other people did just because they I have the same nationality? I think it's awful what happened and should be remembered always but I refuse to take responsibility for something I didn't do.

No one is asking you take responsibility for it. I certainly do not feel responsible for slavery, although my direct ancestors were slaveholders.

Besides what about the other genocides nobody ever remembers? Those have been forgotten. The Germans actually deal quite well with their history.

I agree completely. This is something of which all Germans should be very proud. However, anti-semitism predates the Nazis by many, many centuries. One of the unfortunate side effects of the Holocaust is that it sort of pins all the anti-semitism that ever occured with the Germans, while it has been much more widespread (including this country) throughout history.

I would like to see the Americans do the same with all their genocides.
You never hear about the concentration camps the U.S. had for the Japanese, now do you?

Actually, you hear a good deal about it in this country. Of course, and I don't mean to start something here, but you brought it up, we didn't systematically kill the people in these camps.


OK, look. I'd love to go on and on about all this, but I actually have to work today. This is PRECISELY why I stay out of the political threads, and this is turning into one. All I wanted to do was see what people were saying about Arafat, and point out that -- even though he looked like Ringo Starr -- he was not a good man. I stand by that, but I don't know want to get into the business of defending Israel's right to exist.

No one is blameless. I'm not saying that Arafat was bad and everyone else in this conflict is an angel. However, you can agree that Arafat was evil, and doing so does not make you closet Zionist. If I've personally offended anyone, I apologize. However, I do stand by what I've said here.

[lalcan]

Well, hopefully the conflict in the middle east will be solved by those responsible for it with as few deaths as possible, i understand it's a sensible issue, i myself think Israel has as many rights to exist as Palestine, and if you're willing to accept it, let's hope for a soon and long-lasting peace agreement.

That makes me think that if all the people could use Apple computers, everyone would be less prone to violent behavior :-)

Greetings

[jayscheuerle]

Arafat wasn't very successful at bringing peace to his country, but he didn't have much to work with other than acquiescence, which doesn't move one's agenda very far forward.

Terrorism is simply how groups of modest means make the largest impact. It was Palestine's only way of asserting itself. How else do you face the exceptionally funded Israeli army? Head to head? Be real. You use what you have.

Neither country has a "right" to this land. Long-standing disputes like this are what wars are made of, what they're for. Might makes right in these cases and that has always been the case in human history, which is ALWAYS written by the victors, even rewritten when the tables turn...

As far as the peace process goes, it's good that he's gone if only for the reason as it wasn't going anywhere with him at the helm. Let's help someone with a level head and an open mind steps up to fill his shoes instead of someone like the self-righteous demagogue that the ranks of simpletons anointed in this country.

[jayscheuerle]

That makes me think that if all the people could use Apple computers, everyone would be less prone to violent behavior :-)


Come on now...
The fanaticism of Mac users is what these people already have! At least they wouldn't have sharpened their shooting skills on as wide variety of games as their PC using counterparts...

[mactastic]

Sadly I think the next Palestinian leader will have to 'prove his chops' so to speak. Any leader who jumps right into appeasement will be seen as a tool of the West and will probably be assasinated or marginalized. Only someone who promises to 'get tough' with Israel will be able to consolidate power.

Did we in the US vote for someone to negotiate with our enemy, or did we vote for someone to wipe them out? Why would anyone else do differently?

[jayscheuerle]

You never hear about the concentration camps the U.S. had for the Japanese, now do you?

Very misleading here, unless you're misinformed to a huge degree.

The Japanese internment camps, which held 100,000 - 120,000 Japanese Americans were indeed a midguided, panicked response to Pearl Harbor. And while it is undeniably horrible to be uprooted and lose most of your possessions, as well as being separated from family and friends, it is a far cry from being wiped from the face of the earth. The Japanese Americans that died in these camps were relatively few, usually the result of improper medical attention or authority conflicts with the armed guards.

Horrible? Yes. Genocide? No...

About the closest that Americans have come to genocide is their treatment of the Native American Indians.

"Dealing" with something is more than pointing a crooked finger at someone and saying "Well, you did it too!"...

[jayscheuerle]

Did we in the US vote for someone to negotiate with our enemy, or did we vote for someone to wipe them out?

Unfortunately, it's IMPOSSIBLE to wipe out a concept...

[mactastic]

Unfortunately, it's IMPOSSIBLE to wipe out a concept...

I didn't ask whether it was a good idea or even if it was practical, I'm just asking what the majority of our citizens would prefer to see.

[Mantat]

This conflict has been going on for hundreds of years. I don't know why this would change anything. Not that I don't want it too, but looking at history makes it easy to predict the outcome.
This is an incredible display of ignorance... For centuries all 3 religions cohabited in Jerusalem without any problem. The current **** is the result of politicians post WW2.

Israel made a big mistake to not allow him to be buried in Jerusalem. I am sure that such a display of generosity and empathy would have created a real positive effect on both side.

[jayscheuerle]

I didn't ask whether it was a good idea or even if it was practical, I'm just asking what the majority of our citizens would prefer to see.

Personally, I'd see negotiations as a means to an end. The "go on the attack at all costs" philosophy reminds me of the ending of Chuck Jones's "Duck Dodgers" short, where all that's left of the planet is the little chunk Daffy is standing on, proclaiming it in the name of Earth. "B'b'b'big deal" says Porky.

The question should be whether it's better to live in peace with getting only half of what you want, or to spend your life at war trying to get it all. Compromise isn't a weakness. It's a means to an end...

The majority of our citizens appear to be idiots who see the complex as simple, close-mindedness as inspired, and ignorance as steadfastness, so yes, they would prefer to see their country attack and defeat an idea, however impossible that is with weapons.

[mactastic]

The majority of our citizens appear to be idiots who see the complex as simple, close-mindedness as inspired, and ignorance as steadfastness, so yes, they would prefer to see their country attack and defeat an idea, however impossible that is with weapons.


Calling people on the right stupid does no more good than them calling people on the left amoral or immoral. Fellow Americans should not be your enemy.

[jayscheuerle]

Calling people on the right stupid does no more good than them calling people on the left amoral or immoral. Fellow Americans should not be your enemy.

I didn't say they were on the right, did I? ;)

I'm not sure I'd call people immoral for condemning the slaughter of 100,000 civilians either... (that IS what you were referring to, right?)

No enemies here. Just a lot of baffled disrespect and embarrassment. Thank goodness that local government has more effect on my day to day life (and would you believe I vote almost straight republican in that case?)... :eek:

[gekko513]

Well in my opinion, if any side is immoral it would be the christian right side. Many of the modern Christian churches are following some of the most hypocritical philosophies in existence today.

So that makes the right side both stupid and immoral :D ;)

[yoda13]

I normally don't participate in the political forums, not in the least because I don't want to offend anyone with my opinions, which I feel tend to be in the minority, at least in terms of this board (read I am a conservative) but I have read through this thread and feel it necessary to make a few comments. I took a class a couple of years ago as a part of this grad program that I am finishing up that dealt extensively in this topic (and I am in no way claiming that this makes me an expert on this conflict...it most certainly does not...but it did get me interested enough in it to follow it more closely over the last couple of years) so I have been following in closely since and have developed some opinions which I feel that I much share after reading what has been written here. First of all, Arafat IMO was a terrorist and a thug, and the only reason that I mourn his passing is because I greatly fear that his passing will greatly destabalize what there is of a peace process. However, Israeli leadership, at least in its current form (which is what I am most familiar with) is no better. Sharon is also a thug and a terrorist of Palestinian people. If one calls Arafat a terrorist, and I believe that he is, then one must also call Sharon one as well. His personal hatred of Arafat and vice versa, I believe doomed any chance of peace while both were in power.

My fervent hope is that the infusion of new blood in key leadership positions will move the peace process forward in a constructive manner. However, I feel that this is a long shot, unless the Israelis change their leader as well. But change is the only way peace could possibly move forward in the region, IMHO.

As far as to what I have to say to those that are critical of the US's support of Israel, we are what we are. We may be influenced by a biased media (there is some valid criticisms here) true enough. But when the state of Israel was formed after WWII, their security and the right for them to exist was guaranteed by the British, and oblgation that the U.S. has since taken over. Further, I (and this is only a personal opinion, no educated reasoning here) beleive that many Americans had their views of the Palestinian plight lowered by the events of 9/11. A lot Americans, I feel, wrongly associate the terrorists of 9/11 with all Arabs, if not all Muslims. This natually increases support of Israel. For this reason, many Americans, and our govt. too I feel forget that the duty we inherited from the British also included guaranteeing a Palestinian state, which we have fallen woefully short on. Anyway, I ramble on here, but my point is that the leadership of both sides is tainted and needs change for peace to move forward, and also that the U.S. is obligated to gurantee the security of Israel, problem is, we have forgotten our duty to the Palesitinians.

As far as the reference to American genocide goes, we are guilty of this in the past. All one has to do is look at our treatment of the native populations that were here before European settlers arrived. We have dang near exterminated them over the last 200 years. However, the reference to the Japanese internment camps was misguided. They were horrible and a big black spot of embarrasment on our modern history, but we did not systematically torture or murder them as were done in the Nazi concentration camps. A distinction that is important, but does in no way absolve us of guilt in the way that we treated people of Japanese descent during the war. America also contains just as many anti-semitics as Europe or any other place, so picking on Europe for this, I feel is unfair. We sure as heck have no moral high ground here.

Anyway, I have rambled on enough, I just felt compelled to comment, and hope that I have not offended anyone too much, as that was not my intention. I think that we all hope that peace moves forward in the region and that it is equitable for all involved.

[gekko513]

It's good to see some sense coming from a self proclaimed conservative from Texas, yoda :)

Many wise words there.

[takao]

it won't chance much... if anything happens the palestinian side will get into fighting for the power..and after that the will go back into the trenches with fighting against israel... untill both sides can agree to a real compromise we won't see any peace there.period.

in my eyes both sides are equally guilty for this conflict ..and i don't expect that either side (the extremistic groups on both sides) will chance anytime soon (the next decade)

perhaps the conflict just isn't "open" or "violent enough" at the moment for them to realize thats it's their own fault ...sounds hard but perhaps further escalation is really the only way for solving this...

(and for the US involvement: perhaps that 2 billion $ isreal gets for arms only would be spent more usefull for helping people in other countries)

if the issues don't get solved you end up like the balcan did (and perhaps still is): a drypowder-barrel who wil ldetonate at the smallest spark...

[blackfox]

My prayers go out to his family and friends. May he rest in peace. Sad that he was unable to realize of dream of peace and a Palestinian State. May his death bring on a real push to a fruitful peace.Although I tend to argue/discuss issues here in the Political Forum, in this instance my feelings are summed up by Wdlove's comments. I have my opinions of Arafat, but he is dead, so I will let him rest in peace and leave his legacy for History to decide. I also hope this sparks another chance at Israeli/Palestinian peace.

As an aside, my family (mother's side) was interned in Japanese American Internment Camps (minidoka, in Idaho). While it was true that they were not killed, to have your land and assets seized by the government and have your father taken away with men in black suits and black cars in the middle of the night, is still effectively robbing one of their life. It is fortunate that my grandmother had a number of elder sons to support the family, as being a working single-mom in the 40's would've been exceedingly difficult.
For the record, under Clinton, my mother and each of her siblings received a written apology from Clinton and $25,000. My Grandmother recived $100,000. Too little, too late perhaps, but an acknowledgement of misdeeds is always welcome.

I do not mean to further or imply a comparison between this and other human madnesses as mentioned in this thread, but I did want to mention that it varied only in degree, not in morality (or lack thereof).

FWIW

[Diatribe]

No one is asking you take responsibility for it. I certainly do not feel responsible for slavery, although my direct ancestors were slaveholders.


And I don't hold you responsible. Not forgetting is the key. But as I said above critizising Israel should not be considered being anti-semitic.



I agree completely. This is something of which all Germans should be very proud. However, anti-semitism predates the Nazis by many, many centuries. One of the unfortunate side effects of the Holocaust is that it sort of pins all the anti-semitism that ever occured with the Germans, while it has been much more widespread (including this country) throughout history.

Yes, exactly. The reasons why this genocide happened in Germany were many and the idea is older than you, me or our grandparents. In the beginning almost no country offered shelter for the Jews Germany tried to expel, which is very sad also. A lot went wrong there.




Actually, you hear a good deal about it in this country. Of course, and I don't mean to start something here, but you brought it up, we didn't systematically kill the people in these camps.

I know that you didn't kill those people in those camps systematically. With the genocide comment I was referring to the native americans and Hiroshima. Sorry if that was misleading.


OK, look. I'd love to go on and on about all this, but I actually have to work today. This is PRECISELY why I stay out of the political threads, and this is turning into one. All I wanted to do was see what people were saying about Arafat, and point out that -- even though he looked like Ringo Starr -- he was not a good man. I stand by that, but I don't know want to get into the business of defending Israel's right to exist.

No one is blameless. I'm not saying that Arafat was bad and everyone else in this conflict is an angel. However, you can agree that Arafat was evil, and doing so does not make you closet Zionist. If I've personally offended anyone, I apologize. However, I do stand by what I've said here.

No need to apologize, we are having a reasonable and mature discussion, which is not necessarily what the political forums are usually like, which is why I usually try to avoid those discussions. :D

That said I think we can agree on most of our points but I just wanted to make sure that my point is clear that I think Israel and Jews, and therefore anti-semitism are two different things. Although some people don't like to see it that way.

[Diatribe]

Very misleading here, unless you're misinformed to a huge degree.

The Japanese internment camps, which held 100,000 - 120,000 Japanese Americans were indeed a midguided, panicked response to Pearl Harbor. And while it is undeniably horrible to be uprooted and lose most of your possessions, as well as being separated from family and friends, it is a far cry from being wiped from the face of the earth. The Japanese Americans that died in these camps were relatively few, usually the result of improper medical attention or authority conflicts with the armed guards.

Horrible? Yes. Genocide? No...

About the closest that Americans have come to genocide is their treatment of the Native American Indians.

"Dealing" with something is more than pointing a crooked finger at someone and saying "Well, you did it too!"...

As I just said, I was referring to the native americans and Hiroshima. I am sorry if that was a misleading comment. I know that those camps were a bit different. And what's wrong with saying that it is not only a German-specific thing? Why is the German/Jew genocide always the only one really talked about? We are, what I think, the most advanced country in dealing with our history, so what's wrong in expecting the same from others?

[Mechcozmo]

As for the number of civillians killed my Arafat, this pales into comparison to the numbers killed by Israeli forces using weapons paid for by AMERICAN money. Hang your head in shame America

Alright. Lets get something straight. The IDF (Israel Defense Force) does not target civilians for the heck of it. They only shoot back at an armed target. That armed target may be a 16 year old kid with an AK-47 or a 18 year old girl with a belt made out of high explosive and nails. Some civilians are shot in the cross fire. But they are offered treatment by Israeli doctors and hospitals. The PA (Palestinian Authority, the people supposedly in charge of West Bank and Gaza) refuses to allow that to happen. So the civilians die. Also, included in the civilian death count are: Palestinians killed when a bomb goes of prematurely, a civilian killed when they shoot a gun in the air (wedding, period of happiness or sadness) and the bullet comes back down and hits and kills someone.

Israel as enough guns, bombs, tanks, and aircraft to wipe out the entire non-Jewish population of the West Bank and Gaza in under three hours, with maybe an extra thrown in there for the odd person in hiding. But they don't. Israel also buys a great deal of their weapons because they need them. The Yom-Kippur war. Seven Arab countries attacked Israel on THE holiest day of the year for Jews. Also during the Arab month of Ramadan...holy time for Arabs. Israel had to scramble to make sure that they were not wiped out. Bomber aircraft were spotted over Tel Aviv-- a totally civilian city-- and had to be turn away or shot down to prevent mass murder.

So if Jordan and Egypt invade Israel, it gives Israel the Godsend right to do the same to Palestine?
They were part of a small country that invaded Israel. That land was taken in war. Israel recently gave it back, something that the USA has not done to the Native Americans, the British (colonies), the French, (Canada was fought over, check your history books).


How many generations of germans do you want to hold the stain of the WWII? forever?

Nazis. Not Germans. Nazis. Not all Germans were Nazis, and not all Nazis were Germans. And I hold the Nazi's responsible for the Holocaust forever, but WWII I do not hold against the Germans forever. It was horrible, WWII, but attempting to wipe out and entire people? The Holocaust, IMHO, was much worse than WWII from an intent perspective.


You shouldn't judge anyone, you are not here to do it, this guy is dead, he has already been judged by, let him rest in peace, this whole "I'm the good guy and will teach the world the way things are supposed to be" thing won't get you anywhere.

And I disagree. I judge people, but I remain open to allowing that judgment to change. First impressions do count. I can walk past you in a daze, wearing rags, or I can walk past you in a T-shirt and shorts and say, "Hello." You will judge me sure as hell. I will look like a druggie the first time and a nice person the second.

Please explain to me how the Isreali forces bulldozing Palestinian homes, business, and killing everyone inside (without warning mind you) is any different? Perhaps because they're using bulldozers instead of bombs, bulldozers paid for by America? So that makes it OK?
No. The IDF only demolishes the homes of terrorists and their immediate families that harbor them. They take everyone out, make sure the building is clear of people and explosives, and then destroy it. They do not touch the buildings next to the one being demolished. I don't know about the bulldozers being used and where they payment came from, but I do know that American special-ops units and others and being trained by the Israeli's at how to demo a building without hurting anyone and without demolishing the buildings next to it.

I say he had his good side and his bad side. And if Arafat was a terrorist Sharon is a war criminal. There are always two sides of a story. I understand both sides.
Besides, technically all the women and men in Israel have served in the Army and can be called up any time(minus the children) and are basically part of the Israeli military. So is it terrorism to kill a soldier off duty but not on duty? (Just something to think about. I am not by any means trying to justify the killing of civilians. But it's odd that one side always seems to make themselves better than they are.)
Because the "Sbarro" bombing of a few years ago killed a number of people under 18...
Because those people have done their 4 years of military service and do not want to have to kill again. There are 22 year old commanders in Israel. They have a hell of a lot more maturity than an American kid in a collage dorm. They do not want to have to defend a military position and command other 18 year olds. But they know they need to. Once they are done they want to get on with their lives. Because they want to be a normal person, and not a person that can be killed because he/she is an off duty soldier. Would you like to have your death justified because you are eligible for military service?

Israel made a big mistake to not allow him to be buried in Jerusalem. I am sure that such a display of generosity and empathy would have created a real positive effect on both side.
I don't, but that is just my opinion.

And what's wrong with saying that it is not only a German-specific thing? Why is the German/Jew genocide always the only one really talked about?
Because it is a Nazi/Jew genocide and a Nazi-specific thing. The Germans get way too much crap over this.

[jayscheuerle]

Why is the German/Jew genocide always the only one really talked about?

I think that is because Germany in the 30s was such a modern, civilized, industrialized society, and yet they were not only able to undertake something so barbaric, but they used their contemporary scientific knowledge to do it so efficiently. It gives pause to those countries that consider themselves to be enlightened and modern, because if it could happen to Germany, it could happen to any country.

When you hear about it in Rwanda for example, you tend to think of it in terms of heartless, gun-toting rebels from a backwards country.

What is so bothersome about the Nazi's is that they were so efficient, so good at it...