[Merged] Arafat Dead.

[punky]

Yes, he's gone.

About time. Anyone else got this horrible feeling in the pit of their stomach that he'll get replaced with someone worse?

Anyone else think it is distasteful that Yahoo reacts to his death in the same way as if a president dies?

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by punky

Yes, he's gone.

About time. Anyone else got this horrible feeling in the pit of their stomach that he'll get replaced with someone worse?

Anyone else think it is distasteful that Yahoo reacts to his death in the same way as if a president dies?

Yep, me. The man was an evil dictator, so good riddance.

[zovat]

Originally Posted by punky

Yes, he's gone.

He has indeed,

Originally Posted by punky

About time. Anyone else got this horrible feeling in the pit of their stomach that he'll get replaced with someone worse?

He may well be, despite his origins, and some would say current status as a terrorist, he has tried to bring peace to the region without losing his stated goal of a palestinian state.
Many of those who would replace him are openly supporting the ongoing terror campaign, and some are even saying that they feel it is not enough.

Originally Posted by punky

Anyone else think it is distasteful that Yahoo reacts to his death in the same way as if a president dies?

Why ? - He is the president of his people, and he has done much in his life, both good and bad.

To his people he is a hero, a man who has tried to build an independant life for palestinians , and free them from the oppression of the Israelis.
To the Israelis he is the leader of a terrorist nation, and responsible for the death of many of their people.

To the rest of the world he is somewhere in-between.

He has been an open supporter of terrorism, and yet has won the nobel peace prize for his attempts to resolve the Palestine/Israel conflict.

he has been both negotiator and murderer, and most people would do well to remember both sides.

I cannot say I will mourn his loss, other than as the loss of another human. And yet I will not rejoice in it either.

As many are saying, this will be a turning point in the middle east. There appears to be no single leader strong enough to take his place, and the palestinian people have known no other leader for the last 40 years.

I shall wait until his legacy has been decided before I can pass judgement on his life.
If his succesor takes on the mantle of a peacefull solution and gets a Palestinian state, then his legacy is a good one, if his successor returns to the days of terror and non-negotiation, then it is a legacy of death and destruction.

This is an emotive subject, and I know that there are people on this forum with strong views on this subject. I have tried to be as unbiased as I can, so please refrain from insulting myself/each other when possible

[etccarmageddon]

page 2 of today's sun presents some serious allegations...

it says wife stays in a £10k a night hotel suit and has substantial funds from a swiss bank account.

it also says Arafat was corrupt and milked off aid money for his own ends.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004522351,00.html


a corrupt politician! no chance!!!

[punky]

Originally Posted by zovat

He has indeed

...

This is an emotive subject, and I know that there are people on this forum with strong views on this subject. I have tried to be as unbiased as I can, so please refrain from insulting myself/each other when possible

A very thoughtful and balanced post - really rare round here (And yes I know I am one of the worse offenders for that.)

I only ever speak for myself, but it doesn't matter what he did for peace (and in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't much), if someone like him not only promotes terrorism, but is a terrorist himself - does that give him a pass? Not in my book. Think of it like... Someone donates £50m a year to NSPCC, but abuses kids himself, does that mean we should take the line: "But he gives all that money to charity so let's respect him for that dispite the fact he does bad things"?

As etccarmageddon has pointed out, not only does he have all those terrorist links, but his fiancial misdealings have been known for years, albeit only whispered.

I just hope that someone will come forward, who isn't corrupt, has at least some common sense, and the fortitude to deal with Hamas et al. once and for all. Someone who'll work with the Israelis and not just advocate blowing them up. I don't like seeing Palestinians suffer anymore than anyone else, but the Jews have been around for some 4000 years versus the Muslims' 1300, they deserve to exist

Edit: About the president bit: It was a bad choice of words on my part, but OB already quoted it so I couldn't change it. I meant it like an undisputed honoured leader. If he wasn't so corrupt I might have called him that. I can call myself what I like, doesn't mean it is true or deserved.

I think that there will be more than one 'successor' and that the Palestinians will probably fracture and disintergrate as a nation.I do not think there is anyone in as strong a position as Arafat to be able to unite them all.There are going to be accusations and counter accusations about where the money is and possibly even a blood bath between differing factions.

[sir_drinks_alot]

maybe the the mods would like to Merge all the arafat thread in to one
even the thread i started about this hole thing 3 weeks ago !!!!

3 week old thread

[James79]

Just came across this thread. I dont usually become political on this site or even in public but I feel I must give my opinion on this subject and some of the comments that have been aired.

Originally posted by INCOGNITAS:

"Well whatever anyone might say and I'm the last to defend any form of terrorism at least Sein Fein never used suicide bombers."

To be honest - no Sinn Fein / IRA (whatever you wish to call them) did not, to the best of my knowledge, use suicide bombers - they used innocent civilians by hijacking their vehicle installing an Improvised Exposive Device (or even worse, a crudely constructed bomb) onboard and forcing them to drive to a certain location (usually a Police Station or Military Base) - warning them that if they got out or they tried to stop or warn others, the IED would be detonated - many people were murdered this way in Northern Ireland!!

I read in a local newspaper article a few weeks ago that Claire Short was defending the reasoning behind insurgents attacks on British and US forces in Iraq. Unfortunately she decided to use the example of Northern Ireland because her father is/was from Armagh. In her statement she stated that the IRA didnt attack or murder any civilians throughout the 30 year period of the conflict!!!!! Do the victims of the Warrington and London Docklands Bombings agree with this?? I would say not!! To use one person's anecdote, "If the IRA didnt kill any civilians then Hitler was a pretty nice bloke".

Some may say in this case that compared to the Palestinians, the Irish Republican Movement was not as dedicated to their cause as those in the Middle East - this is just one point of view - not necessarily my own because I witnessed it and living in such a situation where you cant go where you want, when you wish is sheer hell and Im glad that is all behind us!!


In terms of Arafat - yes, the man was perceived as a terrorist - but at least he had a cause and a vision. He fought for what he believed the Palestinian people desired despite condemnation from world leaders. He made a "Faux Pas" when he aligned himself with a certain Mr Saddam Hussain during the first Iraq / Gulf War. But he did attempt to make peace with Israel throughout the 1990s until the present day and it is for this that he should be remembered, after all the Israeli Authorities have also been accused of so-called "state-sponsored terrorism". Therefore a "Catch 22" situation was the end result where no-one can back down because each faction continues to attack each other.

To be honest, I would have been more sympathetic with the Israeli cause - and it was not until this morning that I realised how backward and bigotted some members of the Israeli Govt were. I believe that their Justice Minister was on television and radio this morning proclaiming that the world was a better place now that Arafat had died. Perhaps it would be a better place without views like that!!!

This is just my few cents worth and a bit of a rant and my post it not meant to be offensive to anyone - I see the world for what it is. A spade to me IS a spade.

James

Originally Posted by James79

Just came across this thread. I dont usually become political on this site or even in public but I feel I must give my opinion on this subject and some of the comments that have been aired.

Originally posted by INCOGNITAS:

"Well whatever anyone might say and I'm the last to defend any form of terrorism at least Sein Fein never used suicide bombers."

To be honest - no Sinn Fein / IRA (whatever you wish to call them) did not, to the best of my knowledge, use suicide bombers - they used innocent civilians by hijacking their vehicle installing an Improvised Exposive Device (or even worse, a crudely constructed bomb) onboard and forcing them to drive to a certain location (usually a Police Station or Military Base) - warning them that if they got out or they tried to stop or warn others, the IED would be detonated - many people were murdered this way in Northern Ireland!!

I read in a local newspaper article a few weeks ago that Claire Short was defending the reasoning behind insurgents attacks on British and US forces in Iraq. Unfortunately she decided to use the example of Northern Ireland because her father is/was from Armagh. In her statement she stated that the IRA didnt attack or murder any civilians throughout the 30 year period of the conflict!!!!! Do the victims of the Warrington and London Docklands Bombings agree with this?? I would say not!! To use one person's anecdote, "If the IRA didnt kill any civilians then Hitler was a pretty nice bloke".

Some may say in this case that compared to the Palestinians, the Irish Republican Movement was not as dedicated to their cause as those in the Middle East - this is just one point of view - not necessarily my own because I witnessed it and living in such a situation where you cant go where you want, when you wish is sheer hell and Im glad that is all behind us!!


In terms of Arafat - yes, the man was perceived as a terrorist - but at least he had a cause and a vision. He fought for what he believed the Palestinian people desired despite condemnation from world leaders. He made a "Faux Pas" when he aligned himself with a certain Mr Saddam Hussain during the first Iraq / Gulf War. But he did attempt to make peace with Israel throughout the 1990s until the present day and it is for this that he should be remembered, after all the Israeli Authorities have also been accused of so-called "state-sponsored terrorism". Therefore a "Catch 22" situation was the end result where no-one can back down because each faction continues to attack each other.

To be honest, I would have been more sympathetic with the Israeli cause - and it was not until this morning that I realised how backward and bigotted some members of the Israeli Govt were. I believe that their Justice Minister was on television and radio this morning proclaiming that the world was a better place now that Arafat had died. Perhaps it would be a better place without views like that!!!

This is just my few cents worth and a bit of a rant and my post it not meant to be offensive to anyone - I see the world for what it is. A spade to me IS a spade.

James

The IRA also murdered innocent children but we still have had to sit at the same table and come to some agreement with them.

As far as I can see with the awful behaviour from both factions(that the people who are entirely innocent are caught between)will make it very difficult for either side to sit at any table for some considerable time.Neither side can in my opinion claim the high ground.

If only there were some moderate voices shouting loud enough on either side.

Is it possible to be fanaticaly moderate?I feel that's what the world needs more of and less polarisation.

[James79]

Unfortunately, many years of conflict have resulted in the increased polarisation of communities, regions and countries. This in turn has led to "bitterness" being not only passed from one generation to another, but also the intensification of this bitterness towards opposing factions.

I remember when the NI Peace process was just taking off, we were furnished with the example of the Middle East Peace Process and how it had succeeded. I believe that you are right Incognitas that we do require more moderates in society - but how can we convince those who are lining their pockets with the current situation (ie - the politicians) of such a necessity??

We are all human after all and forgiveness is a large part of our ethical core. So why not just sit down and talk frankly but progressively and stop trying to gain the high moral ground!!

James

[andygrif]

Back to the Middle East for a moment.....

From what I understand of the situation the new acting head of Palestine is seen as more moderate than Arafat.

The problem is that Sharon is not a moderate, so unless he can tone his stance down somewhat then no new Palestenian leader will be the sole answer to the issues in that region.

As they say...it takes two to tango.

[punky]

Originally Posted by andygrif

The problem is that Sharon is not a moderate, so unless he can tone his stance down somewhat then no new Palestenian leader will be the sole answer to the issues in that region.

Sharon is not the problem. He proposed it in parliment to remove Israelis from Gaza, and even got it passed. It is just the Israelis that have lived there for decades that don't want to go, but they'll be removed forcibly now.

James79: You said Arafat was a nice bloke because he had a [good] "cause and vision". Well Hitler did as well if you asked him. He thought he was making the world a better place. We aren't judged on our intentions, but our actions.

Arafat could have clicked his fingers and the conflict would have been so different. He had that power. But, he never used it.

Originally Posted by punky

Arafat could have clicked his fingers and the conflict would have been so different. He had that power. But, he never used it.

Could he? I don`t mean that in a flippant way, this conflict has two sides and both are equally responsible. With Arafat now dead one of Sharon's favourite excuses for acting like a barbarian has left the scene. Logically, until the new leaders of the PLO have demonstrated which way they are going to go, Sharon should curtail his reign of terror. It remains to be seen whether this will happen, of whether he just wants to continue with his tired rhetoric and finds a new excuse. If ithe latter it does bring into question whether Arafat, no matter what he did, could have eased the tensions in the area.

[Xaccers]

Another excellent post by punky

The millions that Arafat and the PA have creamed off have been well known about, this is why Australia recently took back it's billions donation because there was no paper trail as to where the money would end up.
Some of the money that doesn't go into the politicians' swiss bank accounts goes into UN run schools, where pro-terrorist propaganda has been found.
When you see Gaza on the TV, you see the run down houses, the rubble etc, you don't see the nice million dollar houses though.
You don't hear about the hospitals that the israeli's build for them (hmm but the PA have got all that money...) or the free heart surgeory etc that the Israeli's offer them.

It's ironic that Israel was created as a land where jews and arabs could live in peace, and yet with the meddling of arab neighbours we have all this turmoil. Most israeli arabs (who are ethnicly and historically no different to the palestinians in gaza or the west bank) live as israeli citizens, in peace and prosperity.

Hopefully now Arafat has gone the peace process can start again.
And I really hope that a civil war doesn't break out between the settlers and the IDF next week while I'm there!

[James79]

Orgininally Posted by Punky:

James79: You said Arafat was a nice bloke because he had a [good] "cause and vision". Well Hitler did as well if you asked him. He thought he was making the world a better place. We aren't judged on our intentions, but our actions.

Sorry Punky but where did I say that Arafat had a "good" cause and vision?? Such paraphrasing is dangerous!! I admit that my statement could be construed as meaning that but I believe that many thugs and terrorists are doing what they are just for the fiscal / personal reward not the social / cultural betterment of their people.

I underline the fact that I do not agree with any illegal action for the supposed benefit of any community or country and apologise profusely if my statement offended anyone!!!

James