Arafat's dead.

anyway. I liked how Bush called it a "significant moment", way to dodge there...

That's good, because Mandela is one of the greatest human rights figures of the 20th Century. Arafat... well he isn't.

I have to admit, Arafat made some really bad decisions, but at least he had some kind of a resolve to stick it out for reasonable demands. Israel kept backtracking and changing their side of the deal to take more and more. It's pretty hard to bargain with someone who keeps changing their mind about their end of the deal. Frustrating too, I imagine.

The real shame is that his bad decisions and rather shitty techniques for going about things overshadowed the fact that the palestinians were getting screwed in the whole 'peacemaking process' because the only arbiter was the US which is so pro-israel that it makes the process kind of a joke.

Much like George W Bush and Ariel Sharon.

"Mr. Arafat was once seen as a romantic hero and praised as a statesman, but his luster and reputation faded over time. A brilliant navigator of political currents in opposition, once in power he proved more tactician than strategist, and a leader who rejected crucial opportunities to achieve his declared goal."

at least he had the will not to give in to some of the shitty proposals that were thrown at him. It just would have been nice if he'd had some kind of a better barganing chip (and the know-how to weild it) to push for what he really wanted. Instead he just kind of muddled along and never really got very far.

Sad : (

x post

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

remember who the chairman of the bbc is
-- Obvans (ob...), November 11th, 2004.

wait a moment, can we backtrack - what sort of a comment is that ???

so it's now ok to use spiteful racism on ILX cos it's 'only' against Jews ?? WTFingF ?

but to trigonalmayhem: take your jew hating and shove it up your ass, fuckface.

besides, that's the attitude that perpetuates the problem. how about instead of blaming just one side, blame BOTH sides. they both have valid complaints. it's not just one sad little group of innocents being oppressed by the big bad evils. that's propaganda bullshit.

how many times can this be pointed out and still be ignored?

(x-post)

The term "Palestinian" itself had referred to Israeli Jews back in the 1940s, and had been slowly deconstructed and redefined to refer to the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. The Middle East Conflict was always a war by Arabs against Jews, not a conflict between Israelis and "Palestinians." The war was repackaged as a conflict between Jews and Palestinians as a public relations gimmick by the Arab fascist regimes. These regimes had never had any interest in "Palestinians," in creating a "Palestinian" state, or in "Palestinian nationalism" before 1967. That is because Palestinian nationalism did not and DOES NOT exist. The Palestinians were a regional group of Arabs having virtually no cultural nor national distinctive traits separating them from Syrians, Lebanese, and Jordanians.

The bulk of what are called "Palestinian Arabs" are members of families who migrated into the land of Israel beginning in the late 19th century. Palestinian nationalism is a mislabeling of Arab nationalism. Arab nationalism exists, although it is closely bound up with Islamic nationalism and even Islamism. Palestinian nationalism, however, is a phantom. It is nothing more than genocidal hatred of Jews.

The Arab assaults and aggressions against Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1968, and 1973 had nothing to do with Palestinians. The Palestinian terror campaign would itself be easy to suppress today and eradicate if the Middle East conflict were really a Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Israel would simply obliterate the terrorists and expel their supporters to Syria and Lebanon. The Middle East war continues because it is really an Arab-Israeli war, not an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is also in large part a war between barbarism and civilization. In many ways an Islamic religious jihad against the Jews.

From 1948 to 1967, Egypt ruled Gaza, Syria ruled the Golan Heights, while Jordan ruled the West Bank. They could have set up independent Arab-Palestinian states in any or all of those territories, but they didn't even consider it. Instead, in 1967 they used the Golan Heights, Gaza and the West bank to launch a war that was unambiguously aimed at destroying Israel, which is how Israel came into possession of those territories in the first place.

Failed attempt at a war actually. Nice use of language there.

Had Israel lost this 1967 defensive war, the Arab-Palestinians and their Arab allies would have raped, butchered or driven out every Israeli they could get their hands on

Of course they would have - Arabs are animals after all, "subhuman" you might describe them as.

-- beanz (beanzil...), November 11th, 2004.

Be sure to direct the same admonishment at Dadaismus.

Oh no no, please carry on, it's highly amusing.

2. Dadaismus, you should stop abusing good.

3. Where's my Nobel Prize?

4. xpost.

-- Dadaismus (kcoyne3...), November 11th, 2004.

Dadaismus is a first-class idiot. He has no rational argument to back up his position, he just likes to fight for fightings sake, and apparently likes to get his ass kicked. His defense mechanism is to act smarmy to cover up his intellectual shortcomings, but that attempt is all too transparent. Anyways, I've made my point and obviously Mr. Dumbdaismus is too dense to do anything but throw imbecilic 5-word sentences around. So I'm done with this assclown. Have a good day, gents. Except for you, Dadaismus -- I hope you get hit by a bus.

actually i imagined it more in the voice of Holly in Red Dwarf when he was trying to Lister that everybody's dead.

Arafat was nothing but bad for his own people and for their neighbors. Yes, the Palestinians have had a rough time of it, but don't just blame Israel for that; look toward the guy at the top of the PA who was stealing from his own people while filling them with murderous dreams of jihadist glory. When Barak offered him a Palestinian state - complete with a capital in Jerusalem - and it didn't meet his specs, he didn't negotiate. Rather, he responded by sending bombers to kill Jewish civilians in pizza parlors, Passover seder tables and buses. That's not what a statesman or a politician does.

I'd like to hope that with Arafat gone, the ordinary citizens of the Middle East really can see peace. But I'm pessimistic enough to think that he's poisoned the well for generations to come.

whew, i've just been away for an hour.

Dadaismus and Good, you're as bad as the protagonists in terms of fruitless arguing - one of you is full of knowledgeable righteous indignation but doesn't want to listen, the other has nothing to offer beyond insults which seem to me to have an agenda behind them.

(it could have been about Emile Heskey though as well)

dave lister: haven't we just gone in?

dave lister: what's up with everybody, Hol?

holly: They're all evil, dave

dave lister: who is?

holly: Everybody, dave.

dave lister: What, Ariel Sharon?

holly: everybody's evil, dave.

dave lister: what about arafat?

holly: yes, arafat's evil, dave

dave lister: what? benjamin netanyahu?!?!

holly: Yes, benjamin netanyahu's evil, everyone's evil, dave

dave lister: no!! not geroge dubya bush!

holly: Gordon Bennett! Yes! Dubya, everybody. Everybody's evil, Dave. He's evil, everybody's evil. Everybody is evil, Dave!

dave lister: wait, are you trying to tell me everybody's evil?

Or is that just another lie that the Bush administration used to justify the Iraq war that's been blown out of the water and hastily forgotten?

actually, look at the country which stole their land and water resources and forced many thousands of them into exile.

When Barak offered him a Palestinian state - complete with a capital in Jerusalem - and it didn't meet his specs, he didn't negotiate.

christ, this Camp David thing again... where Barak & Clinton offer Arafat a mickey mouse country broken up into bantustans by apartheid roads for Israeli settlers, with purely notional sovereignty over Jerusalem and little or no guarantees of having real external borders and control over water resources... and then they are surprised when Arafat doesn't roll over and accept it.

...you mean, as opposed to the PLO/PA-favoured solution where (and don't kid yourself this is not still the case as suggested some posts above, o naif-like children) Israel is bludgeoned into oblivion.

You all know that both sides will claim the land is theirs and find a seemingly cast-iron reason for doing so. So for fuck's sake, why not just sod the history lessons altogether and, as George in Blackadder said, get all the big nobs around the table to thrash it out. Or is that too hard ?

All lies, which is no surprise considering the messenger ...
for instance, read here.

...you mean, as opposed to the PLO/PA-favoured solution where Israel is bludgeoned into oblivion.
Despite this, the PLO repeatedly refused to amend the part of their charter which calls for the destruction of Israel. It was supposed to be changed after Oslo, but it never was. So yes, Darren is right -- "bludgeoning Israel into oblivion" has technically never been removed from the PLO agenda.

Arafat's death has resulted in some surprisingly informative TV ... to name but one example of what I will call "the truth emerging" -- during the funeral, CNN correspondents actually acknowledged that other Arab nations have been abusing the Palestinians for decades, shunting their rights and needs aside in favour of a continuing war with Israel -- true of course, but nothing I've ever seen admitted on TV before.

I know Barry has strong feelings on this subject, but it really does no-one any good if he cites biased sites as evidence, as I (and I suspect others) can't accept what sites affiliated with or explicitly and unconditionaly pro, Israel claim happened at the peace talks.

If it wasn't obvious before, it's been obvious in the last few days -- I haven't seen a single media outlet, on any side of the political spectrum, say that Arafat didn't blow it at Camp David. The evidence has been weighed, and just about everybody other than the Palestinian delegation is in agreement over what happened. It's not "bias" to disagree with whatever that delegation wants to peddle.