Arafat died this morning

[Lurion]

Hi! I was just curious about what kind of opinions, views and sentiments you guys had on this. I'm quite concerned about the general direction the the israeli/palestinian conflict has taken over the years and this is seriously going to afect stability among the palestinians and the arab world in general, I think. The last thing they need is an even more evident division of power! I'm also quite affected since Arafat, IMO, was the only one left with a bit of sense in this whole situation and I deeply respected him. Rest in peace.

[Awake]

This is a daaaaaangerous thread to bring up...I think the mods need to keep an eye on this thread, and the posters a civil tongue in their heads. While I suspect we're probably marginally on the same side of the debate, I don't agree with your conclusion at all that Arafat was "the last one with a bit of sense".

I've been aligned with the Palestinian side for a long time; wrote articles and debated endlessly on the subject in college. However, I've also been saying for quite a while that it is time for Arafat and Sharon to go, to get out of the picture. They, more than any other particularly individuals, have been the ones holding progress back in many instances, Arafat probably more so recently. The problem is that Arafat is simply unwilling to make the compromises that will have to be made by both sides. Even the butcher Sharon has shown willingness to grudingly make concessions, yet Arafat remains trapped in an all-or-nothing "win or die" mindset, unable to move beyond his roots as a freedom fighter / terrorist (feel free to use the adjective you prefer) and into the world of practical politics. And politics is the art of the possible.

I - as a Palestinian supporter - see Arafat's death as being potentially the first step towards progress in that region. I remain hopefull that a solution is possible, but only when both sides learn to compromise. The Israelis are starting to learn; Arafat never did. Perhaps his successor will.

[Enigma™]

This thread WILL be closely watched - There's going to be the whole "0 Tolerance Rule" Where first offence will be closed.

Don't insult other people, back your opinions up with facts. Treat each other with respect, but that also doesn't mean you have to agree with others.
If it comes down to flaming, or worse, This will be closed.

Carry on :)

[Lurion]

You are right on that we've been having too much of both arafat and sharon. Maby I was a bit blinded by the fact that I had just heard the news of the death of the rais when I said that he was the only one left with a bit of sense, since you are right in saying that he has probably been the most radical of the two leaders (at least in his statements, since Sharoms actions simply make me feel sick). Anyway, I did not open this thread to talk about the past but to discuss what might happen in the future.
You are right in that there is a chance now that steps be taken in the right direction by the palestinians, but only if the same steps are taken by israel, and only if palestina manages to find a fresh and strong unificating spirit (other than terrorism), and this I find very unlikely to happen straight away or even in a few years time.
I am on no side, or even on both sides, if you like, since I understand that whilst the israelis need a country to live in. Specially after what happened in WW2. But taking over somebody elses country because it was the home of your ancestors 2000 years ago is not really logical (I know that wasn't entirely or even mostly the jews decision, but it's still what happened, in a nutshell). There is no easy way on this (as over 50 years of non stop conflict have proven). Still, whilst Israelis keep voting for opressing policies, palestinians will keep on blowing themselves up in packed buses. And so long as there are still people willing to commit these acts of terror, there will be no unification of views in Palestina or Israel. It's kind of a vicious circle. I'm not saying that I think the situation is hopeless, but very deep changes need to be made, not only in the high spheres of power, but mostly in the cultural and educational aspect of both cultures.

By the way, enigma, I will be the first to ask you to close this thread if it gets out of hand. I am aware of the fact that it's a very dificult matter, but I just wanted to discus this with people from outside my coutry to get a broader view and this board is the most international place I visit!! :D

[StandBuilder]

A very dangerous thing to come up with, right now.
Not only the "Arafat subject", but the whole religious backgrounds.

Look here in Holland, for instance.
Van Gogh is killed 8 days ago, by a muslim, so now hell has broke loose.
Yesterday, in The Hague, four terrorist were arrested after a lot of fighting between police and those four.
Since the killing of Van Gogh, there have been several attacks on religious building and even school's are not save anymore.

There were held some polls between the Dutch population and almost 90% isn't tolerant anymore. A high percentage even says, that we have to get rid of foreigners...

Think twice, before you write something down...

Stainlessly,

P.

[Deceit]

A predictable event, an expectable consequence of time, which is not going to change the situation. Palestinians and Israelians will just carry on fighting much like before. Arafat hasn't been a strong leader for a long time, maybe for his increasing sickness. Anyway, he spent his life serving his country in the name of freedom, and had a main role in history.
The only thing that threatens and worries me is the fact that, with Arafat's death, there IS the possibility the extremists of Hamas will take more and more power, even striking against their moderate opponents. And this is what the international forces should be aware of; if Hamas comes to lead Palestinese people, that would mean more and more deaths on both sides. And this is not what the common concept of good=life, evil=death suggests.
I am against extremisms of any kind, except mine for music :), this is basically what I think of the political issues in any country of the world.
A rather simple (maybe naive) view over a rather complex world.
Deceit.

[Isaari]

To be honest I think he was poisoned by Mossad.

Mossad is one of worlds most daring and succesful organisations for
agent warfare. They were vicious soldiers never thinking about their
own survival, but as most of them have families now that´s also
changed a somewhat. Also proficient in obtaining blueprints for military equipment and industrial secrets.

To back this up with facts...
Khaled Meskaal survived such an attack known to be Mossad
and poisoning causes how would I say total collapsing of blood.
They haven´t published cause of death from one of best hospitals
in the world, so there must be something fishy going on.

fascinating to have opinions from people living there.

I would like to clarify that I am mostly on Israeli side here.

[YtsejAmir]

i'm happy that arafat died, from the simple fact that he was a muslim terrorist dictator like any other muslim terorrist dictators (sadam husein, osama bin adden, and the list goes on...) and of course he even killed his own people and he never accepted israel as a country. if he ever wanted peace with us he would compromise and take the agreement that our former prime minister barak offered him.
i want peace with the palestinians and the big majority of israel wants peace with them, and i hope that the the new palestinian leader will not be a muslim terrorist dictator like arafat and will want to be a real partner of peace.
alot of the world media as always show the israelis as the "bad evil soldiers" and the palestinians as the "good and weak people" like in fairy tails - good for the media, don't believe everything the media feeds you, its just not what happens here in reality.
"To be honest I think he was poisoned by Mossad" - isaad, i think its a joke, maybe you've seen too much action movies, but anyway, i wouldn't care if the mossad really did poisoned him, he has so much israelis and palestinians blood on his hands.

[Irish]

YtsejAmir's post expresses my opinion as well.

[Deceit]

Dear YtsejAmir, I'd say...if that ultraorthodox assassin didn't kill Rabin, there would probably be peace now...or at least it would be better, don't you think so? No need for further deaths...and anyway you have to acknowledge that, without Arafat, today it could even be worse. Arafat has been a leader.
Maybe not your favourite, but he kept order and tried to reach peace as well as pursuing his idea of nation as long as he could.
The problem is you both want "peace", but SOME of you don't. Some of you seek for total annihilation of the "enemy". And everything they do is justified because it is "in the name of God" ...gimme a call when those guys see Him, I'll probably start believing in something that day.
HEY! For crying out loud...are we insane? It's the year 2004, and there's still people fighting for a "religious state"? Oh *please*!
Deceit.

[Fossil Records]

Hmmm... tried to figure out why my "Lock Topic" tab was gone and then remembered I don't mod this board. :oops: :lol:

Unfortunately, this topic is going to continue to do NOTHING but cause problems.

:?

[Awake]

The problem is you both want "peace", but SOME of you don't. Some of you seek for total annihilation of the "enemy".Indeed, and part of the problem is that whenever there are moments of peace agreed too, their fragility is such that it only takes one idiot on either side to spark another round of violence. No matter how delicately an agreement is negotiated, no matter how close to peace the region might get, it only takes one moron to climb onto a bus and pull the pin on a grenade, or one Israeli soldier to feel the need to get his gun off, and we're right back where we started. Both scenarios have played out repeatedly ever since the Intifada began.

wI don't have any particular reason to suspect the hand of the Mossad in this matter, but neither would I be surprised if it was learned that this was the case. It would hardly be the first time that Mossad had attempted to assasinate Arafat (indeed, Mossad has repeatedly tried to do away with Arafat for thirty years, with scant regard to the cost - q.v. Arafat's obituary (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1348450,00.html)), and the Israeli government has demonstrated a repeated willingness to use assasination as a negotiating tool, to the alarming silence of both Republican and Democratic administrations in Washington.

Incidentally, Bush has today declared (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1350146,00.html) that he envisages a Palestinian state within four years. If so, it is possible that this means that Bush has realized that resolving the inequity of Palestine is as critical a component of winning the war on terror as the success of regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Deceit]

Does HE have to envision it so WE envision it with him, or can we envision it on our own? I "envision" it as well...but if the ways of obtaining peace are the same of Iraq...hey, no thanks buddy :). In Iraq, the once considered "easy war", there are still hostages dying, rebellions and terrorists around every corner. I don't call this peace. And I don't envision a peaceful Iraq in a short time. I mean...hey, has Bush become God? Let's just wait until he envisions heaven for us all, is it fine for you?
Deceit.

[YtsejAmir]

Deceit,
"Dear YtsejAmir, I'd say...if that ultraorthodox assassin didn't kill Rabin, there would probably be peace now...or at least it would be better, don't you think so?" - no, i don't think so, the rabin murdering was a terrible terrible thing that shouldnt happen again and could happen in any country, but i don't believe that rabin and arafat would bring peace, because of arafat from the reasons i mentioned in my previous post.
"and anyway you have to acknowledge that, without Arafat, today it could even be worse. Arafat has been a leader." - of course i acknowledge that, i'll also acknowledge every other bad or good things that can happen in life, but you know what? arafat was so bad, so the new leader will have to try really hard to be worse then arafat, heh.
"Maybe not your favourite, but he kept order and tried to reach peace as well as pursuing his idea of nation as long as he could." - this is my favorite, this is a joke, the palestinian guerillas terrorists didn't and don't give a damn about arafat, if they wanted and WANT to send suicide terrorists to bomb public places in my country like busses, clubs, etc... they decide by themselves, our fources prevent and stops dozens of suicide terrorists and terrorists acts EVERY week. arafat destroyed his own people, so i guess that was his idea. his death can only bring hope for a better future for both sides, period.

[YtsejAmir]

"The problem is you both want "peace", but SOME of you don't. Some of you seek for total annihilation of the "enemy"." - that won't prevent Israel from making peace if the other side wants it. cause we're a democratic country, unlike the palestinians that have no control over their guerilla terrorists that kills "in the name of god" like a song once said.

[Awake]

The problem is you both want "peace", but SOME of you don't. Some of you seek for total annihilation of the "enemy". that won't prevent Israel from making peace if the other side wants it. cause we're a democratic country, unlike the palestinians that have no control over their guerilla terrorists that kills...And yet, despite Sharon's willingness to withdraw settlers from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, those settlers refuse to leave. It seems that neither side has full control over its agents provocateurs (or rebellious children, if you'd prefer)...With consequences discussed in my previous post. Both sides want peace, but both are saddled with extremists who dictate the path of events.


i'm happy that arafat died, from the simple fact that he was a muslim terrorist dictatorOne man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The founders of Israel were regarded as terrorists, once, as I'm sure were the founders of the United States. It all depends upon one's point of view. And, for the record, as much as he was a stumbling block to real progress, Arafat was a legitimately-elected leader. That was at least part of the problem; Bush's ultimatum to the Palestinians was not "overthrow you leader", but "elect new leadership".

[Awake]

Does HE have to envision it so WE envision it with him, or can we envision it on our own? I "envision" it as well...but if the ways of obtaining peace are the same of Iraq...hey, no thanks buddy :)To address the first part of this statement: while it is preferable for those of us who supported the war on terror (your side would call us neocons as a term of abuse, although there are several major parts of my ideology which plainly do not match up to neoconservative ideas as expressed in Kristol's book Neoconservatism: Biography of an Idea) to win the intellectual debate in the country at large, it is imperative that the battle to win the minds of national leaders is won. Plainly, it is more important that people who influence national policy understand and agree than it is for you and I to do so.

To address the second part of that statement, I don't believe that regime change is necessarily a military excercise; as Clauswitz and Bismark stated (ideas Bobbit echoes in The Shield of Achilles), war and diplomacy are simply two faces of the same coin: they are means by which states seek to achieve political objectives. Other tools can include economics and espionage, but there are many ways in which one nation can impose pressure on another to achieve its goal. If we spread democracy around the world, thereby giving legitimate means of expression to the frustrations felt by many under tyrannical or autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia, they will be less likely to direct that frustration against America. This is the very essence of the war on terror: the displacement of tyranny by democracy will cut off terrorist recruitment.


In Iraq...there are still terrorists around every corner. I don't call this peace, and I don't envision a peaceful Iraq in a short time.Patience, my friend. Consider the following timeline:

May 7-9, 1945: Germany surrenders;
June 5, 1945: Allies assume control of Germany
March, 1948: Marshall plan begins aid for reconstruction of Germany
August 14, 1949: election of first German Bundestag
September 12, 1949: election of first German Chancellor.

(Source (http://faculty.washington.edu/~krumme/german/chronology.html))

Nation building is not something that happens overnight, even when the enemy has been roundly defeated. The opponents of the war in Iraq have never provided a good alternative for the removal of Saddam Hussein, and instead can only resort to bleeting "sanctions were working", which they most assuredly were not.

[YtsejAmir]

"...And yet, despite Sharon's willingness to withdraw settlers from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, those settlers refuse to leave. It seems that neither side has full control over its agents provocateurs (or rebellious children, if you'd prefer)...With consequences discussed in my previous post. Both sides want peace, but both are saddled with extremists who dictate the path of events." - you're wrong about Israel, our police have a full control over the settlers, and they will be taken out of the settlments soon whether they want to or not - and if that's what going to bring peace here then i support it.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The founders of Israel were regarded as terrorists, once, as I'm sure were the founders of the United States. It all depends upon one's point of view." - freedom fighter dosent kill children and women and innocent people, arafat and all the other terrorists dosen't have this observe and humanism - like any muslim terrorist - they are acting like dogs, animals, like in a jungle with no sense of humanism, they call themselves shahids - unlike our army that chases only after terrorists, thats a big difference.
"Bush's ultimatum to the Palestinians was not "overthrow you leader", but "elect new leadership"." - of course he said "elect new leadership", cause he's a politician and believe me, he's very happy that arafat is gone, cause he dosen't believe in arafat anymore.

[Deceit]

This debate seems working better than expected, IMHO.
Replying to everyone here and there:
@YtsejAmir: didn't you consider there could be EVEN MORE terrorists ready to blow themselves up if Arafat wasn't there? Don't you realize that, if the new leader is a terrorist himself (I assume it will be a male, since women down there aren't that relevant in politics unfortunately...but hey, step by step there will be a better government one day...if you let it be of course), more and more people will be inspired and you will only suffer more casualties? Remember that down there you're outnumbered...your equipment is still better but you're outnumbered...the purpose of the international forces should be making the odds even...giving both YOU and THEM the chance to have a satisfying state...
that won't prevent Israel from making peace if the other side wants it. cause we're a democratic country, unlike the palestinians that have no control over their guerilla terrorists that kills "in the name of god" like a song once said.
Well, keep claiming you're the democratic ones and therefore you deserve dictating the conditions...
Think that your settlements are held by religious fundamentalists who are not that different from the same guerrilla terrorists. They're just on the opposite side, and the equation ISRAELIAN=RIGHT should better be kept out of your mind. There are moderate, intelligent israelian people (like Rabin was), and idiots with long beards and strong beliefs that will hopefully lead to their own distraction.
Anyway, as far as I remember, Rabin and Arafat were REALLY close to peace, so you shouldn't "spit in your own dish".
Deceit.

[Awake]

"...And yet, despite Sharon's willingness to withdraw settlers from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, those settlers refuse to leave. It seems that neither side has full control over its agents provocateurs (or rebellious children, if you'd prefer)...With consequences discussed in my previous post. Both sides want peace, but both are saddled with extremists who dictate the path of events." - you're wrong about Israel, our police have a full control over the settlers, and they will be taken out of the settlments soon whether they want to or not - and if that's what going to bring peace here then i support it.That's certainly good news to hear, on two levels: firstly, it's good to hear that Israelis are willing to make compromises for peace. Both sides must learn to compromise and live together; as noted in my previous post, Arafat never did and possibly never could; we hope his successor can. Bravo to the Israelis that some of them have already crossed the bridge. :) Secondly, it's good to hear that the intransigence of many settlers is just hot air. I await their removal with anticipation. :)


"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The founders of Israel were regarded as terrorists, once, as I'm sure were the founders of the United States. It all depends upon one's point of view." - freedom fighter dosent kill children and women and innocent people, arafat and all the other terrorists dosen't have this observe and humanism - like any muslim terrorist - they are acting like dogs, animals, like in a jungle with no sense of humanismOn the contrary - people claiming to fight under the banner or freedom have killed indiscriminately for years - both sides in Northen Ireland, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and UNITA in Angola, to name but four. During the Vietnam war, fighting in the name of a free South Vietname and to hold back the tide of Soviet expansion, America's military killed its enemies with very little discrimination, both on the ground and from the air.


unlike our army that chases only after terrorists, thats a big difference.Carrying on from the previous post, the IDF has killed women and children during the course of the intifada on numerous, well-documented occaisions - and, unless it considers throwing rocks as terrorism, these were not terrorists. For sure, it has killed terrorists also, but there have been numerous casualties whose main crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The term "cycle of violence" is entirely appropriate - a Palestinian commits an unspeakable atrocity, and as a response, the IDF tightens its grip. As it tightens its grip, already desparate people- ordinary people for all intents and purposes - are traumatized by the loss of family members, and are driven straight into the hands of the terrorist leaders. Those leaders give them a simple message: "there's not much you can do to improve your situation - but we can give you a way to get revenge on the person who killed your husband and daughter". So they go off and commit an unspeakable atrocity; as a response, the IDF tightens its grip...And the whole thing repeats.


"Bush's ultimatum to the Palestinians was not "overthrow you leader", but "elect new leadership"."of course he said "elect new leadership", cause he's a politician and believe me, he's very happy that arafat is gone, cause he dosen't believe in arafat anymore.Oh, that's certainly true, but it's not relevant to the point that I was making. Bush certainly wanted no dealings with Arafat, because he was aware that Arafat was a blockage in the way of progress, and Bush is a businessman, unwilling to throw immense effort into a situation with no chance of reward. I'm sure he'd also prefer different leadership in Israel, but it's impossible to say as much in US Domestic Politics.

It's important to note that no-one does not condemn terrorist atrocities, and the Palestinians continue to be shot in the foot repeatedly by individuals who commit these actions. But it's also important to understand the psychology of both sides, and to show empathy when considering a resolution.

Incidentally, I'd just like to note that it's very pleasing to me that this thread - which deals with an emotive subject which often leads to bitter argument - has been very civilized and polite thusfar, despite the obvious disagreements of posters. Bravo us!

[agamemnon]

wow,I havent posted here in...1 year or so.

Anyway, my sister goes to Iraq soon so this topic has some relevance to me now.

I read on the BBC topics an Arab student state, "we don't need anymore symbolic leaders..."

I think thats very true for the region. Its has a good parralel around the world regarding political leadership, where sombody takes a cause and finds that one singular cause is there only claim to fame.

Arafat fought for peace when it put him in the limelight, he blocked peace when it took him from the limelight. The diplomatic fight he took the stage over was not peace with Israel, but unity between Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Arabs, that cause was relevant when the Palestinians were unified with a desire for freedom. Now the whole thing looks like a scene from "Gangs of New York", many gangs who represent the oppressed and at the same time maintain the oppression for there own power.

That whole region needs elections that are relevent. There is not one leader in the region that I can think of that represents or can be held accountable for the state of their people.

I didn't support Bush, but I do hope that Iraq fights its way to true democracy, WMD's or not, to be an example against the issuance of Fatwas, utimatums, and violent retribution that seems to be all these people are used to, (the governments that is...)

Arafat should have stood down after the failiure of the Camp David Accords. It will take years before we know exactly all the damage he did with his political granstanding and his addiction to fame, now there might be room for real diplomatic gains an and end to endless skirmishing.

peace...

[Lurion]

I don't have internet at home (I write from my uni) so I haven't been able to follow the thread throughout the weekend. I'm surprised to see it's kind of being successful! I've always been a believer in the human ability of comunication, although many try to prove me wrong (like, for example, those asking for this thread to be closed).

Many interesting things have been said:
@Deceit: about israelis being outnumbered... that is not a point: israel has one of the most powerfull armies in the world. Palestina only has unorganised gangs. If an open conflict rises (God forbid), the terrorist groups have not enough power to fight a well prepared and comanded army. Obviously such an event won't happen (or at least is highly unlikely to happen, thank goodness) because there is still willingness to reach a peacefull conclusion.
You also raised an good point about religion and a religious state. Indeed religion is the main issue concerning muslims. Actually, if you think of it, the religious connotations implied when you tal about the western world are almost inexistant. When you talk about a person being a "westerner" you don't think about his religion. It's actually highly probable that he is NOT religious at all (specially if you refer to europe). Howerver, the word "muslim" or even "arab" and "israeli" to define a person implies direct religious connotations. And when it comes to the conflicts with this pareticular culture, religion is always a main issue. I am of the personal opinion that religion, as soon as it turns into an institution of masses, turns into a weight to carry for progress. I'f the catholic church had had it's way we would probably still believe that the earth was the center of the universe and america would not have been discovered (which would imply, among other things, no Moogs!). If the muslims and israelis dropped their religious arguments, the conflict would turn into a simple diplomacy matter (well, maby not, but it would still be a much less brutal matter). However this is as unlikely to happen as me being able to play "The Dance of Eternity" because of the same esential reason: I am not willing to even try!
And don't get me wrong in this whole religious issue: I do believe in God (in quite a personal way). I'm not against that. I just think that how you believe in God or wether you do or not is one of the most personal things there is, and nobody has a right to impose that on anybody else, and obviously thinking you are better for your beliefs is ridiculous, specially when they are not relly YOUR beliefs, but something imposed with no chance of argument.

[Junnart83]

I don't have internet at home (I write from my uni) so I haven't been able to follow the thread throughout the weekend. I'm surprised to see it's kind of being successful! I've always been a believer in the human ability of comunication, although many try to prove me wrong (like, for example, those asking for this thread to be closed).

Many interesting things have been said:
@Deceit: about israelis being outnumbered... that is not a point: israel has one of the most powerfull armies in the world. Palestina only has unorganised gangs. If an open conflict rises (God forbid), the terrorist groups have not enough power to fight a well prepared and comanded army. Obviously such an event won't happen (or at least is highly unlikely to happen, thank goodness) because there is still willingness to reach a peacefull conclusion.
You also raised an good point about religion and a religious state. Indeed religion is the main issue concerning muslims. Actually, if you think of it, the religious connotations implied when you tal about the western world are almost inexistant. When you talk about a person being a "westerner" you don't think about his religion. It's actually highly probable that he is NOT religious at all (specially if you refer to europe). Howerver, the word "muslim" or even "arab" and "israeli" to define a person implies direct religious connotations. And when it comes to the conflicts with this pareticular culture, religion is always a main issue. I am of the personal opinion that religion, as soon as it turns into an institution of masses, turns into a weight to carry for progress. I'f the catholic church had had it's way we would probably still believe that the earth was the center of the universe and america would not have been discovered (which would imply, among other things, no Moogs!). If the muslims and israelis dropped their religious arguments, the conflict would turn into a simple diplomacy matter (well, maby not, but it would still be a much less brutal matter). However this is as unlikely to happen as me being able to play "The Dance of Eternity" because of the same esential reason: I am not willing to even try!
And don't get me wrong in this whole religious issue: I do believe in God (in quite a personal way). I'm not against that. I just think that how you believe in God or wether you do or not is one of the most personal things there is, and nobody has a right to impose that on anybody else, and obviously thinking you are better for your beliefs is ridiculous, specially when they are not relly YOUR beliefs, but something imposed with no chance of argument.

That's right! There's no far comparison between these 2 armies! Israeli's army is loooooooooooooooooooooooads more powerful! It could even be stronger than the italian one...(even though that's not very hard...) :lol: (just to laugh a lil' bit, otherwise that's gonna be a SAAAD thread!)