NationStates Jolt Archive

The official communique will be at the next hours.
The cermony will be at thursday in Cahiro, and the funeral will be at friday in Ramlala.
Israel will not let him be buried at Jerusalem.

many people agreed that after years that he wasn't a partner to peace, now after he will go there chance for peace agreement, or at least cease-fire.
other think that now the hamas and the terrorist will take control on the palastinian people, or the goverment will fall, and then will be an anarchy.

what you think, there is chance to peace or chance to madness? did Arrafat was leader or terrorist? and where he will buried?
in this issue you can give him last respect (or curse him if you prefer to).

...and a time to every purpose under Heaven...

The official communique will be at the next hours.
The cermony will be at thursday in Cahiro, and the funeral will be at friday in Ramlala.
Israel will not let him be buried at Jerusalem.

many people agreed that after years that he wasn't a partner to peace, now after he will go there chance for peace agreement, or at least cease-fire.
other think that now the hamas and the terrorist will take control on the palastinian people, or the goverment will fall, and then will be an anarchy.

what you think, there is chance to peace or chance to madness? did Arrafat was leader or terrorist? and where he will buried?
in this issue you can give him last respect (or curse him if you prefer to).Since there were never serious peace efforts on the Jewish side, a "partner" was never really needed. When Arafat tried to go a peaceful way all that came from the Jewish side was lip service.
There will be no peace until the Jews leave the land where they do not belong. But there is NO sign that will happen in the near future.

what you think, there is chance to peace or chance to madness? did Arrafat was leader or terrorist? and where he will buried?
in this issue you can give him last respect (or curse him if you prefer to).
There is chance to peace but chance to madness is more likely. Arafat has been a terrorist, he has been a leader, and he has been an old moneyhungry despot. And he'll be buried in West bank (or so they said in the morning news)

In Ramallah (just checked)

What does it matter now where Arafat is buried? The important question is how all will go on now? Is Sharon going on with his alibi withdrawal plan for Gaza to divert attention from further land grab in the West Bank? Or will the Jewish side finally show REAL commitment?

Eh. Didn't really have any opinion on Arafat himself, but I do think the Palestinians need to stop blowing themselves up, especially around the Israelis, and the Israelis need to stop marginalising anyone that isn't Israeli or gifting them.

Seriously, folks, what ever happened to actually TALKING OVER YOUR DIFFERENCES? :confused: ... Oh right, I forgot, that would make -sense-.

Seriously, folks, what ever happened to actually TALKING OVER YOUR DIFFERENCES? :confused: ... Oh right, I forgot, that would make -sense-.
Like they haven't tried it. There's just too much anger within both sides. Unfortunately I can't see any peaceful solution in the near future. They can't live in peace in Northern Ireland eventhough they have the same religion. (both christian)

Which news source is saying Arafat is dead?

Since there were never serious peace efforts on the Jewish side, a "partner" was never really needed. When Arafat tried to go a peaceful way all that came from the Jewish side was lip service.
There will be no peace until the Jews leave the land where they do not belong. But there is NO sign that will happen in the near future.
Israel prime minister (in the past),Ehud Barak, accept to gave him almost all(allgaza strip and the west bank,except large setelments areas, all western jerusalem and more), and then arrafat decide that he want that all the arabs will back to their houses before the establishment of Israel, and this mind to destroy Israel as democractic-jewish state. Israel tried to make a peace, but arrafet prefer to be a terrorist.

Hopefully the PLO (that corrupt organisation we call the palestinian authority) can be dismantled, and the israeli's can once again take control of the gaza and the west bank, like they did untill 1993 (in that time they build a lot of schools, the economy went up (although it was brought down thanks to our friend Arafat) and schools (most of them build by the israeli's) were used to actually learn something to the kids, not teach them how to detonate yourself in a bus full of jews.)

Arafat led the Al Aqsa Brigades, one of the most feared terrorist organisations. Arafat blocked the peace process at Camp David, while the Palestinians (while they are actually not Palestinians, they are usually a mix of Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanons, not even Arafat was born in Palestine, he was born in Cairo) got a very profitable offer, which the Israeli's agreed with.

Which news source is saying Arafat is dead?
None, but YLE (our BBC) said they will announce it in few hours. Obviously they are just waiting to get everything ready. You know there should be a funeral in 24 hours after his death.

(to quandrix) Because the palestinian people think their land has been stolen.

What does it matter now where Arafat is buried? The important question is how all will go on now? Is Sharon going on with his alibi withdrawal plan for Gaza to divert attention from further land grab in the West Bank? Or will the Jewish side finally show REAL commitment?
Sharon will going with his withdrawl plan, because it could take months until we see a partner in the other side.
and if the palastinian goverment will STOP THE TERROR we show real commitment.

Sharon will going with his withdrawl plan, because it could take months until we see a partner in the other side.
and if the palastinian goverment will STOP THE TERROR we show real commitment.
Sharon has no real power on the extremist zionist settlers. They can just eject him when they don't like his way.

Like they haven't tried it. There's just too much anger within both sides. Unfortunately I can't see any peaceful solution in the near future. They can't live in peace in Northern Ireland eventhough they have the same religion. (both christian)
in ireland they catolics and protestants (if that how write it), and I think that they had cease-fire right now.

Anyone that does a bit of research knows that most of the Palestinians actually came during the war between israel and it's neighbours, they have the same right on those lands as the israeli's. Saying that the land is stolen from them is for 90% of them BS.

If those Palestinians want a arab state, they can go to the neighbours of Palestine, they all are arab, despotic, just like Arafat wants, but in those nations you don't have any harm from those stupid jews, isn't that great?

Arafat was a terrorist (he's dead now, it'll be announced today.) and nothing more, I will not be sad for his death. I'm not saying that everything the israeli's do is good, however I do think that with Arafat out of the way, there's a chance for peace.

Arafat is/ was a two sided blade.

On one hand we had a terrorist leader who invented/ put to practice one of the most scary, yet intriguing weapons of war - human bombs. He is responsible for the countless deaths of his own people, other Arabs and Israelis. The organization he founded is engaged in terrorism.

On the other hand, he is/ was a charismatic leader who - despite his own history - was able and willing to broker a deal with his worst enemy to achieve a fair peace. Unfortunately he was also unable to keep his own people in line to honour that treaty in the long run. He can be seen as a idol, a archetype "freedom fighter" (not the " and ") and certainly a remarkable person. His motivation was honorable, his means NOT.

I for one part will miss him, but I´ll also recognize and remember his very bad and evil sides just like the good ones he had.

"The death of President Arafat should be announced Wednesday after meetings of the central committee of Fatah and the executive committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to be held at the Muqataa," said the official who asked to remain anonymous.
From http://www.afp.com/english/home/

in ireland they catolics and protestants (if that how write it), and I think that they had cease-fire right now.
Catholics and Protestants are both Christian. It's not the same as Muslims/Jews.
But I know their fights aren't based on different religions but events in history. Irish catholics want British protestants out of the country.
(cutting several corners...but the thread isn't about northern ireland)

was able and willing to broker a deal with his worst enemy to achieve a fair peace.

Then why didn't he? Then why didn't he just accept the agreement at Camp David? Because he's a terrorist (or like you call it "Freedom Fighter." Which is BS, the freedom (a extremist despotic muslim state) he wants is available in the nations surrounding Israel.) he isn't a statesman, he can't sit in a office, he needs to command his al aqsa brigades, he needs to kill as many jews as possible, not sit at a desk ruling a nation (that could probably explain who bad it went with Palestine, a imploded economy, corruption and that stuff.)

Hopefully the PLO (that corrupt organisation we call the palestinian authority) can be dismantled, and the israeli's can once again take control of the gaza and the west bank, like they did untill 1993 (in that time they build a lot of schools, the economy went up (although it was brought down thanks to our friend Arafat) and schools (most of them build by the israeli's) were used to actually learn something to the kids, not teach them how to detonate yourself in a bus full of jews.)

Arafat led the Al Aqsa Brigades, one of the most feared terrorist organisations. Arafat blocked the peace process at Camp David, while the Palestinians (while they are actually not Palestinians, they are usually a mix of Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanons, not even Arafat was born in Palestine, he was born in Cairo) got a very profitable offer, which the Israeli's agreed with.
Well said...Arafat was a mass murderer, the architect of the slaying of the Israeli athletes at the Olympics in Germany, the terrorist who first pioneered the use of hijacking aircraft,thus was in a little way at least even responsible for our own 9/11. While I believe POSSIBLY in recent years he actually tried to be a man of peace, there is no evidence anywhere he ever apologized for his prior acts, and thus the "man of peace" possibly was simply a deception.

Great thread. *grml*

For one half of the posters, arafat is just a terrorist, regardless that he was the person who united most palestinians under a single government. This may not be obvious in first place, but without his efforts, and this is what we will notice in the next years, the palestinian extremists will gain much more power compared to the more peaceful fraction. Thats partially because of arafat (if he would have said anything hard against terror, he would have been buried much earlier), but also because of israels asymmetrical punishment of terrorism (you bomb a bus, we bomb police stations until you stop terrorism and find the terrorists - guess who would have to find the terrorists)

Great thread. *grml*

For one half of the posters, arafat is just a terrorist, regardless that he was the person who united most palestinians under a single government. This may not be obvious in first place, but without his efforts, and this is what we will notice in the next years, the palestinian extremists will gain much more power compared to the more peaceful fraction. Thats partially because of arafat (if he would have said anything hard against terror, he would have been buried much earlier), but also because of israels asymmetrical punishment of terrorism (you bomb a bus, we bomb police stations until you stop terrorism and find the terrorists - guess who would have to find the terrorists)
Pretty sure the Israeli reasoning for bombing a police station is that the Palestinian Police, in MANY instances, have supported the terrorists. The Palestinian Authority is in its entirity a corrupt government that has themselves kept nearly every penny sent by international agencies to assist in feeding, building, etc. As a whole it has done more harm to its own people than Israel has. And the Palestinian extremists seem to already have had quite alot of power, as Arafat never even dared to order his own people to stop the terror attacks. Probably the region is in for even more however, in the short term, but also probably the person who replaces him will be easier to make peace with, as the equivalent to Arafat would be to say that A. Hitler suddenly came back to power in Germany, and then expecting France, Poland,and all the other nations he antagonized to be friends, and to listen to the argument"but he has changed now", which even if it were true, you could imagine a great deal of doubt on the side of the wronged party.

Pretty sure the Israeli reasoning for bombing a police station is that the Palestinian Police, in MANY instances, have supported the terrorists. The Palestinian Authority is in its entirity a corrupt government that has themselves kept nearly every penny sent by international agencies to assist in feeding, building, etc. As a whole it has done more harm to its own people than Israel has. And the Palestinian extremists seem to already have had quite alot of power, as Arafat never even dared to order his own people to stop the terror attacks. Probably the region is in for even more however, in the short term, but also probably the person who replaces him will be easier to make peace with, as the equivalent to Arafat would be to say that A. Hitler suddenly came back to power in Germany, and then expecting France, Poland,and all the other nations he antagonized to be friends, and to listen to the argument"but he has changed now", which even if it were true, you could imagine a great deal of doubt on the side of the wronged party.
Arafat has called restrain on the palestinian terrorists several times. There has been many truces of Hamas after Arafat called for restrain. Those truces have always been broken after an israeli provokation. The timing of the provokations would make one think that they are not really interested in peace but more in land grabbing.
For instance, you will notice how sharon oppened the tunnel, just as he came to power and there was a relative peace. Only an incredible stupidity and ignorance or a deliberate act of destroying peace could lead to this act of provocation.

Arafat has called restrain on the palestinian terrorists several times. There has been many truces of Hamas after Arafat called for restrain. Those truces have always been broken after an israeli provokation. The timing of the provokation would make one think that they are not really interested in peace but more in land grabbing.
For instance, you will notice how sharon oppened the tunnel, just as he came to power and there was a relative peace.
Actually had the discussion with you before, and showed you in your own source that the "Israeli provocation"you cited,was a response to a Hamas attack. ;)

Actually had the discussion with you before, and showed you in your own source that the "Israeli provocation"you cited,was a response to a Hamas attack. ;)
Not the oppening of the tunnel.

Anyone that does a bit of research knows that most of the Palestinians actually came during the war between israel and it's neighbours, they have the same right on those lands as the israeli's. Saying that the land is stolen from them is for 90% of them BS.That's nonsense. Up until WW1 Jews made up only 5 to 10 % of Palestine population, why should any Arab family cede land to those Jews (or their offspring) who later immigrated out of Europe?
If those Palestinians want a arab state, they can go to the neighbours of Palestine, they all are arab, despotic, just like Arafat wants, but in those nations you don't have any harm from those stupid jews, isn't that great?Any argument for that available?
Arafat was a terrorist (he's dead now, it'll be announced today.) and nothing more, I will not be sad for his death. I'm not saying that everything the israeli's do is good, however I do think that with Arafat out of the way, there's a chance for peace.There's no chance for peace until the Jews give up their imperialisiic nationalist racist attitude of Zionism and remove ALL settlers from the West Bank and accept the Green Line as the border of Israel.

Arafat has called restrain on the palestinian terrorists several times. There has been many truces of Hamas after Arafat called for restrain. Those truces have always been broken after an israeli provokation. The timing of the provokations would make one think that they are not really interested in peace but more in land grabbing.
And more often, Arafat funded and supported Terrorists going into a bus full of innocent Israeli's. Arafat personally led the Al Aqsa Brigades. Israeli Provocations? Could you give a example of them?

Arafat has called restrain on the palestinian terrorists several times. There has been many truces of Hamas after Arafat called for restrain. Those truces have always been broken after an israeli provokation. The timing of the provokations would make one think that they are not really interested in peace but more in land grabbing.
For instance, you will notice how sharon oppened the tunnel, just as he came to power and there was a relative peace. Only an incredible stupidity and ignorance or a deliberate act of destroying peace could lead to this act of provocation.
sharon didn't open a tunnel, this was netanyahu. and there was times that hamas just wait that israel will make mistake while the fight in terror, to send suciders to Israel.
even if israel isn't innocent, arrafat is terrorist and the hamas is guilty too.

sharon didn't open a tunnel, this was netanyahu. and there was times that hamas just wait that israel will make mistake while the fight in terror, to send suciders to Israel.
even if israel isn't innocent, arrafat is terrorist and the hamas is guilty too.
They're both guilty. The time for blaming is far away in the past.
Now is time for repairing the errors of the past. Arafat is/was one of the few men who could do that (if there was a slight chance of it being done) (regardeless of his background).

Not the oppening of the tunnel.
I do not, at all see, how someone like yourself, who would seem to oppose war, in general, and certainly shows opposition to the Israelis responding to attacks ontheir civilians with force, can possibly see the opening of a tunnel, as a cause to kill innocent civilians, or anyone, for that matter. You cannot possibly condemn Israel for defending themselves on the grounds they should be "more understanding"or whatever, and then call opening a tunnel, which, btw, killed no one, a grounds for Palestinians to conduct mass murder.

The population of Israel was very, very small untill after WWII. Emigration then started from Europe, and during the war between Israel and it's neighbours a lot of the people that lived in the Arab League went into Israel. That the palestinians were by far the biggest group before the WWI says nothing, since the group of "pure palestinians" (sounds very wrong, I know) is smal nowadays.

Well I take a look at the map, over here we have a jewish state, north of there we have Lebanon, to the right of Lebanon is Syria, if we go a lil' bit down south we have Jordan, even more to the south we have Egypt. They are all arab, with a minimal jewish population. Why can't those palestinians go there? Most of them came from there. And don't say Arafat wants to Palestine to be a shining beacon of democracy and secularism.

I also have never said I approve those settlers, however most of them can be there, it's not like Arafat did anything good for Palestine, Israel did, Israel build schools and roads, Arafat took all the money he recieved from other nations and gave it to himself and to terrorist organisations.

I do not, at all see, how someone like yourself, who would seem to oppose war, in general, and certainly shows opposition to the Israelis responding to attacks ontheir civilians with force, can possibly see the opening of a tunnel, as a cause to kill innocent civilians, or anyone, for that matter. You cannot possibly condemn Israel for defending themselves on the grounds they should be "more understanding"or whatever, and then call opening a tunnel, which, btw, killed no one, a grounds for Palestinians to conduct mass murder.
I was not saying the palestinian terrorists were justified.
I'm saying the world is like it is. There are terrorists, there are religious people, there are zionists and all. You can't ignore that.
Just like I'm not saying Saddam was right, I'm not saying the terrorists are right, I'm saying those who seem to be deliberately stupid have hidden agendas.

That's nonsense. Up until WW1 Jews made up only 5 to 10 % of Palestine population, why should any Arab family cede land to those Jews (or their offspring) who later immigrated out of Europe?
israel gave whole the area modern equipment, good economy, dozens of schools,universities and colture centers. they ruined it while the indepandence's
war. israel call the arabs stay in their homes, and be part of israel, they prefer to listen to the arabs leaders, leave their home and be refugees. whole the time between 1948 until 1967 the arabs states control that areas and they don't build even one school or other thing that could help the peoples. Israel build them everything and, except to talk with them on palastinian countrey.
but sure, israel responsible to their situation, that what you think, aren't you?
There's no chance for peace until the Jews give up their imperialisiic nationalist racist attitude of Zionism and remove ALL settlers from the West Bank and accept the Green Line as the border of Israel.
we already ecxept that, before they decide that all their refugees need to back to their homes (and that destroyed Israrel as Jewish-Democratic countrey).

The primary fact here is that militant Islam(not all Islam) uses the Palestine question to further their own cause, while caring nothing for the Palestinian people themselves, do you think Egypt would open their doors to them?Saudi Arabia?Syria?Iran?no...while they are displaced, they make the world feel sorry for people who should be seen as terrorists. I am not Israeli, I am American. My nation takes alot of heat for supporting Israel, by terrorists and those who support them. The Israel /Palestine issue is worldwide considered the reason militant branches of Islam push their ideas of hatred, but the lies in this are evidenced by the fact that around the world in many nations having nothing to do with the dispute, Islamic extremists continue to murder unarmed people who did no harm to them, in Thailand, Philippines,etc.
Arafat was from the same school of thought, an Islamic extremist, the same school of thought that the other day in Netherlands murdered a descendant of Van Gogh, and left attached to his body a knife through a note "we will take your country over"...these people, no matter who leads them, must face a choice for peace, or if not, the world needs to quit feeling sorry for them, and deal with them.

They're both guilty. The time for blaming is far away in the past.
Now is time for repairing the errors of the past. Arafat is/was one of the few men who could do that (if there was a slight chance of it being done) (regardeless of his background).
maybe, but Arraft is one of the men that dosen't want to do that.

I was not saying the palestinian terrorists were justified.
I'm saying the world is like it is. There are terrorists, there are religious people, there are zionists and all. You can't ignore that.
Just like I'm not saying Saddam was right, I'm not saying the terrorists are right, I'm saying those who seem to be deliberately stupid have hidden agendas.
I did understand what you were saying :) My point was I do not understand why you were agreeing with the Palestinian"hidden agenda" while condemning the Israelis. who at least do not hide their own agenda.

The primary fact here is that militant Islam(not all Islam) uses the Palestine question to further their own cause, while caring nothing for the Palestinian people themselves, do you think Egypt would open their doors to them?Saudi Arabia?Syria?Iran?no...while they are displaced, they make the world feel sorry for people who should be seen as terrorists. I am not Israeli, I am American. My nation takes alot of heat for supporting Israel, by terrorists and those who support them. The Israel /Palestine issue is worldwide considered the reason militant branches of Islam push their ideas of hatred, but the lies in this are evidenced by the fact that around the world in many nations having nothing to do with the dispute, Islamic extremists continue to murder unarmed people who did no harm to them, in Thailand, Philippines,etc.
Arafat was from the same school of thought, an Islamic extremist, the same school of thought that the other day in Netherlands murdered a descendant of Van Gogh, and left attached to his body a knife through a note "we will take your country over"...these people, no matter who leads them, must face a choice for peace, or if not, the world needs to quit feeling sorry for them, and deal with them.The world does not feel sorry for the terrorists, it feels sorry for the innocent palestinians. Your country does not take heat for supporting Israel against the terrorists, it takes heat for vetoing any resolution against Israel expansion.

I did understand what you were saying :) My point was I do not understand why you were agreeing with the Palestinian"hidden agenda" while condemning the Israelis. who at least do not hide their own agenda.They do hide their agenda, which is the colonisation of the land while they pretend to be fighting terrorists. Why do you think the great wall they're building is on Palestinian land?
I'm well aware about the arab hidden agenda and I condemn it. The neightboring arab countries have never assimilated the palestinian refugees because they are using them as a political tool to further their claim on their religious cities.
Those religious people on both side are fucking fool, even fooler than the patriots in the US.

No news site I have been to says Arafat is dead. He is on life support, in an irreversible coma, and I am certain he will be dead in less than two weeks, but there is a difference. He's still in a hospital, not in a morgue.

Yes Aureulion, because his wife Suha Arafat, said that the PA are trying to "bury her husband alive", and in France, only she can decide when the machine gets switched off. ANd you know when it'll get switched off? When she finds his cash. Thats all she wants, money.

First I'd like to say that Israel is far from free of blame in this. For every one that says that palestinians are guilty of terrorism, there's an equally valid poster that will say that Israel has ceased land that was not his, deported citizens, and so on...

What I'd like to understand is why whould Israel object to Arafat being buried in Jerusalem? Also, what authority do they think they have to enforce this? Isn't Jerusalem as much, if not more, controled by the Palestinian side?

First I'd like to say that Israel is far from free of blame in this. For every one that says that palestinians are guilty of terrorism, there's an equally valid poster that will say that Israel has ceased land that was not his, deported citizens, and so on...

What I'd like to understand is why whould Israel object to Arafat being buried in Jerusalem? Also, what authority do they think they have to enforce this? Isn't Jerusalem as much, if not more, controled by the Palestinian side?
all Jerusalem controlled by the Israeli side, even oslo agreement talked only on gave the palastinians the west side.
and this is israeli right to enforce it because this is the capitol and the most holy place for israel.
and israel, not like other stats don't ceased any land. before the establishment israelies buy the land from the arabs, and develope all the area. before we come they had nothing.
after the establishment Israel take some land, but this was on wars that the arabs states declare on israel. will you agree to someone, who say to you: "so we lose the war, now you give back to us the all area (even the area that was yours before, an we don't stop the terror against you"?

Israel has killed roughly 3 civilian palestinians for every israeli civilian killed by terrorist attacks. Israel has occupied the land given to the palestians for almost 50 years now.
Face it, the zionists in Israel simply want to exterminate the Islamic people living in what they view as *their* lands.

TBecause he's a terrorist (or like you call it "Freedom Fighter." Which is BS, the freedom (a extremist despotic muslim state) he wants is available in the nations surrounding Israel.) [...] *snip!*

Read my post again knucklehead, what did I say right after the quote you pulled out of context?


Here´s what I said (writing this from memory):

"[...]the archetype "freedom fighter" (pay attention to the " and " ).[...]"

One might also point out that there already WAS a peace agreement which failed after a extremist Israeli Uber-Jew put a couple of rounds through Yitzhak Rabin...

israel gave whole the area modern equipment, good economy, dozens of schools,universities and colture centers. they ruined it while the indepandence's
war. israel call the arabs stay in their homes, and be part of israel, they prefer to listen to the arabs leaders, leave their home and be refugees. whole the time between 1948 until 1967 the arabs states control that areas and they don't build even one school or other thing that could help the peoples. Israel build them everything and, except to talk with them on palastinian countrey.
but sure, israel responsible to their situation, that what you think, aren't you?

we already ecxept that, before they decide that all their refugees need to back to their homes (and that destroyed Israrel as Jewish-Democratic countrey).


Nice of you to totally ignore the fact that many Palestinians were forced out - such as when Ben Gurion and Rabin emptied Lydda and Ramla of Arabs or Operation Hiram when the IDF emptied the upper Galilee of Arabs, or that some massacres occured (Deir YAssin comes to mind as well as some others), and at that time militant zionist groups such as Lehi and Irgun used terrorist tactics not any better than what the PLO eventually responded with.


You make it sound like they just all went "Gosh.... look at all the Jews around here... there goes the neighbourhood....let's move!".

Oh right.... you built them a school or two. Well gosh, why would anyone want their own freedom and homeland when they can have a Jewish building and second-clas citizenship?


And it is hysterical that while you celebrate the Jewish drive for an independant homeland of your own you decry all the problems as being from the Arabs wanting the same damn thing. After all - pretty much the whole area was under British rule at the time, and they viewed BOTH sides as rebellious insurgents.

And of course, let's not forget the Absentee Property LAw of 1950. So, what you could do was send the army into a town, and if the families fled - just for a day or two to a neighbouring village to protect the women and children until the tanks left - they were deemed to have abandoned their property and it was "legally" confiscated. Theft throught intimidation.


There is enough blood and fault on BOTH sides in this struggle. There just seems to be far more hipocricy on the Israeli side.

The issue that this thread is in some way attempting to tackle is always going to be filled with emotion and unfortunately that will be the greatest obstacle to a rational debate.

In Britain our T.V. News is by law forced to abstain from delivering a political perspective on any situation that it reports .This has without sounding arrogant allowed me to observe the situation from a neutral stance.I am not a religious person and care not for religious justifications and doctrines that either side would attempt to bring into the debate.I also do not care for those who will just because they identify themselves as jew or muslim blindly follow the cause of another.

It is clear to me that both sides in this conflict have comitted atrocities and any arguments that one has done more so then the other are worthless and will not change my opinion.I believe that progress is the way foward and one group should not be supported because they are "the lesser of two evils".

The Jewish people have a right to a nation
The Palestinian People have a right to a nation
Since both have claims to the same are it seems that compromise and co existence are the only way foward.Unless both sides are prepared to let by gones be by gones then significant progress cannot be made.The situation is in some respects similar to that in northern Ireland.Both sides had to make concessions to allow peace.There were religious diffetrences,there were differences in race and culture yet a sttlement was achieved.The mindless policies of both parties of meeting aggression with aggression will not solve anything and neither will the finger pointing and accusations.Both sides will need to forgive and forget for the sake of the future.Im not aying that will be easy I mean Id be angry if a Challenger tank crushed my home or if a suercide bomber blew a bus to pieces but it is something that will have to be done.

You can all continue attempting to perfunctuate the others case with the predictable "Yeah we did that but its because you did this" argument or you can attempt to remove your personal feelings from the debate and discuss the issue like human beings.

all Jerusalem controlled by the Israeli side, even oslo agreement talked only on gave the palastinians the west side.
and this is israeli right to enforce it because this is the capitol and the most holy place for israel.
and israel, not like other stats don't ceased any land. before the establishment israelies buy the land from the arabs, and develope all the area. before we come they had nothing.
after the establishment Israel take some land, but this was on wars that the arabs states declare on israel. will you agree to someone, who say to you: "so we lose the war, now you give back to us the all area (even the area that was yours before, an we don't stop the terror against you"?
Israel can claim all it wants that Jerusalem is it's capital and all that, it doesn't give them jurisdiction. Jerusalem has been classified as internationnal because it's a holy place for at least three major religions. Israel doesn't have right to Jerusalem more than the Muslim have. Give me one good legal reason why Arafat can't be laid to rest in their just as holy capital.

Israel has killed roughly 3 civilian palestinians for every israeli civilian killed by terrorist attacks. Israel has occupied the land given to the palestians for almost 50 years now.
Face it, the zionists in Israel simply want to exterminate the Islamic people living in what they view as *their* lands.
israel try to kill less as could, but the terrorist hide between civilians in urban areas.
israel take control on their lands after they attack us, and loose the war. in that time israel develope the area more than the arabs stats who control their until 1967, and refused until now to find solution to the refugees.
the zionist improved the lifes to all the palastinians, when the arabs states do nothing to them.
and no matter what they do, we don't go back to europe, an we had rights on this land. the palastinians refused to recognize israel and establish countrey at 1948, so now they had nothing.
if they want countrey they need to stop the terror, because they can't win in terror.

Is Mr. Arafat dead?

My heart goes out to all the Israelis, and Palestinians and so on... It is sad to see that the conflict has reached deep into the societies of both sides. From what I see, even the youngsters from both Jewish and...Arab? sides hate each other.

I saw it on the news today, they interviewed on Israeli girl about Arafat's death...

She said: "He's dead? WWOOOOO!!! Let's have a party..."

Is this hate necessary? The world seems to be full of hatred nowadays...or is it just my godamned pessimist self?

We must continue in our struggle to find middle ground...but at what cost?

Israel can claim all it wants that Jerusalem is it's capital and all that, it doesn't give them jurisdiction. Jerusalem has been classified as internationnal because it's a holy place for at least three major religions. Israel doesn't have right to Jerusalem more than the Muslim have. Give me one good legal reason why Arafat can't be laid to rest in their just as holy capital.
1) If Israel had Jerusalem, then all major religions would be allowed to visit it.
2) If the palestinians had control, nobody would be allowed to visit.
3) If Arafat was buried in Jerusalem then they would have a claim to Jerusalem.
4) He wasn't allowed into Israel in life, why should he be allowed in in death?

4) He wasn't allowed into Israel in life, why should he be allowed in in death?

How about as a means to extend the olive branch? It certainly would mean alot to the Palestinians if he were allowed to be buried according to his wishes

1) If Israel had Jerusalem, then all major religions would be allowed to visit it.
2) If the palestinians had control, nobody would be allowed to visit.

Pure speculation from your part. I'd remind you that arabs held Jerusalem for a long time and let christian come in and worship unharmed.

3) If Arafat was buried in Jerusalem then they would have a claim to Jerusalem.

How so? Jim Morrison is buried in France and the US don't claim Pere Lachaise as their own.

4) He wasn't allowed into Israel in life, why should he be allowed in in death?

Because he can't do harm while dead, neither can he incite revolt or terrorism. You have the burden of proof, not me. You have to demonstrate a valid reason to NOT allow him to be buried there.

I'll give you that: at least you tried to answer my question and didn't go on about which side did what to whom. For that, I congratulate you.

How so? Jim Morrison is buried in France and the US don't claim Pere Lachaise as their own.

We really don't want to claim Jim Morrison, either ;)

Ok, sorry,poor taste,but humor never hurts.

My heart goes out to all the Israelis, and Palestinians and so on... It is sad to see that the conflict has reached deep into the societies of both sides. From what I see, even the youngsters from both Jewish and...Arab? sides hate each other.

I saw it on the news today, they interviewed on Israeli girl about Arafat's death...

She said: "He's dead? WWOOOOO!!! Let's have a party..."

Is this hate necessary? The world seems to be full of hatred nowadays...or is it just my godamned pessimist self?

We must continue in our struggle to find middle ground...but at what cost?
I think it will be more possible with Arafat dead. For someone who in life proto-typified the word "archenemy"with regards to Israel, it is easy to understand the Israeli girl you just mentioned. If someone had made it their purpose in life to kill you and everyone like yourself, I am sure anyone would feel the same. With him gone, I am sure someone with NO history will take his place, and succeed or fail on his own merit, not on his past actions.

All I will say is be careful what you wish for.-

Israel has killed roughly 3 civilian palestinians for every israeli civilian killed by terrorist attacks. Israel has occupied the land given to the palestians for almost 50 years now.

The Palestinians tried to invade the land given to the Israelis in 1948. Would you be speaking up if it was Palestinians who wound up occupying the land given to the Jews in 1948? I think the Green Line is a totally legitimate demarcation point.

Face it, the zionists in Israel simply want to exterminate the Islamic people living in what they view as *their* lands.

Why should WE face it until YOU prove it?


As far as burying Arafat in Jerusalem- the Israelis will never agree to it. To them, Arafat is persona non grata. A comparison to their mind-set would be like Americans being asked to bury Hitler in DC. This has far less to do with law and much more to do with emotion. The Israelis see Arafat as having betrayed them and played them for fools, while simultaneously continuing to blame them for all the Palestinians' problems. They see this as a personal vendetta. In many ways, their points are legitimate.

The Israelis are not interested in lifting an "olive branch" if it has anything to do with glorifying Arafat, which is what they see a Jerusalem burial as doing. They want to move beyond Arafat, they want to deal with a post-Arafat leadership and people. They want to bury him and move on. A massive Jerusalem spectacle would do the exact opposite.

As far as the young girl's reaction- regrettable, even personally distasteful to me, but hardly surprising considering Arafat's status among Israelis. I am reminded of Palestinians rejoicing in the streets after 9/11, or successful suicide bombings, or, in particular, the assasination of right-wing MK Rehavam Ze'evi.

It's about perception. Israelis don't see Arafat as having been interested in peace, they see him as having been an enemy who wanted them dead. Do you think the reaction would be any substantially different among Palestinians if Sharon dropped dead from a heart attack, or was assasinated by a right-wing settler?

Pure speculation from your part. I'd remind you that arabs held Jerusalem for a long time and let christian come in and worship unharmed.

Although the modern period seems to have shown a much less tolerant side. In particular, the 1948-1967 period where Jordan controlled Jerusalem, barred Jews access to their holy sites, and went so far as to use the Western Wall, the holiest place in Judaism, as a garbage dump.

It's speculation, to be sure, but it's understandable, and has a certain amount of history backing it up.

Arafat persoanlly led the Al Aqsa Brigades, you know one group of the guys that blow themselves up in busses full of innocent Jews, offcourse then your happy that he's dead.

I don't agree with Arafat not being buried in Jerusalem, I think that it doesn't help the peace process, however he was a terrorist so I can understand it if they don't want to have him buried in a religious spot.

One might also point out that there already WAS a peace agreement which failed after a extremist Israeli Uber-Jew put a couple of rounds through Yitzhak Rabin...

Rabin's death hurt the peace process but not nearly as much as the fact that jewish settler population doubled from around 100,000 at the time of the Oslo accords to well over 200,000 now not including the 200,000 or so in East Jeruselum. OF course now Sharon is going to be a good boy and "freeze" settlement growth. That sounds great and dandy except for the fact most of the settlers are fanatical zealouts who all have like 10 babies each because they believe a woman's sole function in life is to have as many babies as biologically possible to populate "Israel" which most settlers believe includes all the Palestinian land and a good deal of land beyond that as well. So listen Israel, either dismantle the settlements, especially the ones in the West Bank, or stop complaining about "terrorism" because you are the ones causing it.

I must say, I didn't expect to see more than one person supporting Israel. It warms the cuckolds of my heart to see that I am mistaken.

In regards to Arabs and the Crusades, the first Crusade was a response to the persecution of Christians in the Holy Land by the Turks. They DID shut down access.

Secondly, it is unfortunate that the conflict has turned into a religious one. It really has become more about Muslims vs. Jews, rather than a land conflict. All the Muslim countries in the Middle East are brutal totalitarian governments, and they use the conflict to distract their citizens.

Thirdly, I find the general attitude against Israel rather despicable, particularly the biased stance of the UN. Why would they refuse to censure Sheik Yassin's terrorist acts and all the evil he has perpetuated, but censure Israel for killing him? Maybe US's veto of such a blatantly biased proposal is what someone referred to?

Fourthly, I support the Israeli policy of assymetrical retaliation. Civilians are NOT targeted, but if terrorists hide in Mosques (like what the US is seeing in Fallujah) or behind children and women, then it is an unfortunate consequence of fighting terrorism. I don't think anybody in their right mind can criticize the Israelis for viewing Palestian ambulances with suspicion, after they found out that in several (numerous?) cases, ambalances were used to transport weapons, bombs, and terrorists.

In the words of Golda Meir, (rough words, that is), Peace cannot be achieved until the Palestinians love their children more than they hate Israel. Seeing pictures of five year olds dressed in camouflage, decked out in black mask and holding AK's is a scary thought. The children are brainwashed to hte point where they are willing to kill themselves. To a certain extent, however, I do not blame the PAlestinian people. Rather, the terrorist leaders are to blame. They manipulate and lie. Their goal, after all, is not peace. Let me repeat that. The goal of Hamas is NOT PEACE. Their goal, which they have stated numerous times and should be clearly obvious, is to drive Israel into the sea. To kill every single Israeli they can. I don't see how anybody can support this, so I won't discuss it anymore. I did notice somebody saying that the Israeli's were trying to accomplish that goal. Let me put it rather harshly. If the Israeli's WANTED to kill all the Palestians (and are actively trying, as the post implied), then all the Palestinians would be dead. THe Israeli army could clean out settlement after settlement, and then defeat any arab armies moving in.

As this post is turning out to be a little longer than I expected, I'll sum up. I feel both sides have erred, though I believe the Palestinians are mainly at fault. I believe that a lot of this hatred for Israel is founded on the widespread consumption of Palestinan propoganda, and I support the building of the wall.

Although the modern period seems to have shown a much less tolerant side. In particular, the 1948-1967 period where Jordan controlled Jerusalem, barred Jews access to their holy sites, and went so far as to use the Western Wall, the holiest place in Judaism, as a garbage dump.

It's speculation, to be sure, but it's understandable, and has a certain amount of history backing it up.

And a certain amount of history disproving it. Face it: if they wanted to shut down Jerusalem, the UN and other world bodies would be all over it. I don't see it happening unless it's Israel that does it.

I don't say they will, but if they decide to do it and with the US vetoing every single resolution against Israel, there's a greater chance of it happening.

As far as burying Arafat in Jerusalem- the Israelis will never agree to it. To them, Arafat is persona non grata. A comparison to their mind-set would be like Americans being asked to bury Hitler in DC. This has far less to do with law and much more to do with emotion. The Israelis see Arafat as having betrayed them and played them for fools, while simultaneously continuing to blame them for all the Palestinians' problems. They see this as a personal vendetta. In many ways, their points are legitimate.

Faulty comparison since Hitler was never a US citizen. Arafat has legitimate reasons for bing buried in what the Palestinian consider their capital. Emotion can take a back seat, as the law should be observed. Israel has no legitimate grounds for this and it should be pointed out. You may not like someone but he has the right to be buried on his homeland. In many ways, their points are understandable but they are not legitimate.

Faulty comparison since Hitler was never a US citizen.

Neither was Arafat a citizen of Israel.

Arafat has legitimate reasons for bing buried in what the Palestinian consider their capital. Emotion can take a back seat, as the law should be observed.

What is the Palestinian desire to see Arafat buried in Jerusalem BUT emotion? There's no law mandating he be buried there. It's emotion vs. emotion, symbolism vs. symbolism.

Israel has no legitimate grounds for this and it should be pointed out. You may not like someone but he has the right to be buried on his homeland.

More emotion and symbolism. There is quite a bit of evidence suggesting Arafat's actual "homeland" is Egypt. You are attempting to attack one side for denying something based on its own sense of national myth while propping up the other's right to do so. Look in the mirror.

In many ways, their points are understandable but they are not legitimate.

I didn't say anything about legitimacy, I simply pointed out why it won't happen. I abstain from making judgments about the legitimacy, justice, or legality of such a decision.

Seriously, folks, what ever happened to actually TALKING OVER YOUR DIFFERENCES? :confused:


They tried that, but the palestinians were saying "allah allah allah allah allah allah" The jews were like "oi vey oi vey oi vey oi vey". They just couldn't understand each other. Then the UN diplomat brought out the wine and pork rinds and they been killing each other ever since.

They tried that, but the palestinians were saying "allah allah allah allah allah allah" The jews were like "oi vey oi vey oi vey oi vey". They just couldn't understand each other. Then the UN diplomat brought out the wine and pork rinds and they been killing each other ever since.
...aahhhhahahhahhhaa....
so cruel
so funny :D

My heart goes out to all the Israelis, and Palestinians and so on... It is sad to see that the conflict has reached deep into the societies of both sides. From what I see, even the youngsters from both Jewish and...Arab? sides hate each other.

I saw it on the news today, they interviewed on Israeli girl about Arafat's death...

She said: "He's dead? WWOOOOO!!! Let's have a party..."

Is this hate necessary? The world seems to be full of hatred nowadays...or is it just my godamned pessimist self?

We must continue in our struggle to find middle ground...but at what cost?
well, for israelies arrafat is like bin-ladin. if bin-ladin will die, aren't you would be happy?

And sharon is like Osama to the Palestinians

And sharon is like Osama to the Palestinians
if they don't try to kill him, they can think on him what ever they want.

Neither was Arafat a citizen of Israel.

And Israel is not the only country to claim Jerusalem. The Palestinian authority also claim it as a capital. So, a citizen want to be buried in his capital.

What is the Palestinian desire to see Arafat buried in Jerusalem BUT emotion? There's no law mandating he be buried there. It's emotion vs. emotion, symbolism vs. symbolism.

You don't need a law mandating he'd be buried there. You need a law barring him from being buried there. But yeah, it's emotion too that push both sides, only one need a valid reason to stop something being done.


More emotion and symbolism. There is quite a bit of evidence suggesting Arafat's actual "homeland" is Egypt. You are attempting to attack one side for denying something based on its own sense of national myth while propping up the other's right to do so. Look in the mirror.

Ever heard about dual citizenship? I am attacking Israel's decision because it has no legal reasoning behind it. I've looked through the looking glass and found that both sides have commited atrocities. However, I will denouce the injustices I see.


I didn't say anything about legitimacy, I simply pointed out why it won't happen. I abstain from making judgments about the legitimacy, justice, or legality of such a decision.

I'd like to refer you to post number 59:
As far as burying Arafat in Jerusalem- the Israelis will never agree to it. To them, Arafat is persona non grata. A comparison to their mind-set would be like Americans being asked to bury Hitler in DC. This has far less to do with law and much more to do with emotion. The Israelis see Arafat as having betrayed them and played them for fools, while simultaneously continuing to blame them for all the Palestinians' problems. They see this as a personal vendetta. In many ways, their points are legitimate.

So you did talk about legitimacy.

And Israel is not the only country to claim Jerusalem. The Palestinian authority also claim it as a capital. So, a citizen want to be buried in his capital.except that the palatsinian didn't had a countrey, and as same they can claim paris as their capitol.
You don't need a law mandating he'd be buried there. You need a law barring him from being buried there. But yeah, it's emotion too that push both sides, only one need a valid reason to stop something being done. Israel don't want arrafat buried there, because than his supporter will come to there and will be conflicts.
Ever heard about dual citizenship? I am attacking Israel's decision because it has no legal reasoning behind it. I've looked through the looking glass and found that both sides have commited atrocities. However, I will denouce the injustices I see.
arrafat don't had israeli citizenship, and the palastinians don't had countrey so they can't gave him citizenship too.

One point you just made is wrong, sorry. The Palestinians used to have a country. Till the rest of the world de facto forced the Israelis on them in '48.

Obituary
Yasser Arafat

David Hirst
Thursday November 11, 2004

From an early age, Muhammad Abdul Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini, the sixth child of a Palestinian spice, incense and grocery merchant, sensed that a high destiny awaited him. It did - but Yasser Arafat, who has died aged 75, assuredly earned it by his own endeavours too.

By the standard of lifelong, indefatigable, courageous dedication to a cause, he deserved the title of Mr Palestine that he held for a whole generation of his people's struggle. But by the standards of ultimate achievement, he didn't; rarely can a "liberator" have strayed further from the original ideals of "liberation".

Arafat was born in Cairo, where his father had settled for business reasons, but after the death of his mother, the four-year-old was packed off to Jerusalem to live with his uncle in a house by the Wailing Wall and al-Aqsa mosque.

The Zionists' passionate struggle to wrest exclusive control of the traditionally Muslim-administered Wall made these holy places an emotionally charged arena for the wider struggle for Palestine unfolding under British mandatory rule. Arafat witnessed anguished family debates about the country's future, and saw something of the "great rebellion", the armed uprising of a desperate and dispossessed peasantry which served as an inspiration for the later, equally unavailing "armed struggle" of his own making.

In 1937, on his father's second marriage, he returned to Cairo, where middle class comforts were more than offset by the emotional troubles which an unloved stepmother spread about her. When his father married yet again, his elder sister Inam was assigned the task of bringing up her siblings.

The dominating role of women in Arafat's early life probably contributed to a compulsive desire to dominate and lead himself. Inam soon concluded that he was "not like other children in playing or in his feelings... He gathered the Arab kids of the district, formed them into groups and made them march and drill. He carried a stick and he used to beat those who did not obey his commands."

Outside Palestine during "the catastrophe" - the 1948 imposing of Israel upon some 78% of the country - he didn't directly suffer the terrors and humiliation of mass flight and exile. But long before that he was steeping himself in political and military affairs. By 1946, the 17-year-old Cairo schoolboy realised that, with the Zionists pressing their armed violence against an enfeebled Britain, the Palestinians would have to fight. He became a key, intrepid figure in smuggling arms from Egypt into Palestine.

But his adolescent exploits were wasted. As Arab armies entered Palestine, "an Egyptian officer came to my group and demanded that we hand over our weapons ... we protested ... but it was no good ... in that moment I knew we had been betrayed by these regimes."

He plunged into preparation for the coming struggle - convinced that if Palestinians relied on others to decide for them, they would never recover their homeland. They had no decision-making institutions, so he set about creating them. He took over the stagnant Cairo-based League Of Palestinian Students.

Tireless, wily, domineering, he exhibited another vital trait which helped shape his career, and, through it, the history of the Middle East. At a congress in Prague, he suddenly donned the keffiyeh, or traditional chequered head-dress, which, as well as hiding his entirely bald pate, became his emblem. The gesture sprang from his delight in surprise, showmanship and the theatrical gesture. Style is often the man, and there was surely an intrinsic affinity between this and a remarkable ability to adapt himself and his movement, suddenly, spectacularly, to new goals and policies in a changing strategic and political environment.

In Prague, the 26-year-old student was already advertising his sense of destiny, referring to himself, only half-jokingly perhaps, as "Mr Palestine". And yet, like many contemporaries, he might well have eschewed politics altogether, and become a self-made man of a more conventional kind. Armed with a Cairo university engineering degree, he went to Kuwait in 1958, one of those stateless Palestinians searching for work in the remote, uncomfortable, undeveloped, but newly oil-rich British-protected emirate. He began as a public works department junior site engineer. Then he set up his own company, subsequently claiming that he had been "well on the way to becoming a millionaire".

An exaggeration, perhaps, but his brief business foray later consolidated a carefully cultivated, if genuine, aspect of his personality. As the leader of his people, he disposed of billions and made canny use of them as an instrument of policy and patronage, but led the most spartan of private lives. Similarly, for all his reputed liaisons with women, he could claim that, at great cost in contentment, his only marriage was to his Revolution.

Helped by the funds which his dalliance with material things procured him, he took the first, clandestine steps that led to his emergence as one of the household names of the age: the incarnation, however flawed, of all their aspirations to most Palestinians; of evil and the would-be destruction of their state to most Israelis; of their most sacred, exasperating, and unavoidable obligations to most Arab regimes; of a gradual conversion from "terrorist" to politician, even statesman, in the eyes of an outside world.

In Kuwait, in 1959, with his close friend Abu Jihad, he began publishing a crudely edited magazine, Our Palestine, which, with impetuous and uncouth vigour, lamented the Palestinian refugees' plight and the inaction of Arab regimes, and trumpeted the ideal of the Return, with a full-scale "population liberation war" as the only means of achieving it. Together they formed the Fatah guerrilla organisation's first, five-man underground cell. On January 1 1965, ill-trained, pitifully short of both weapons and funds, the Feyadeen (those who sacrifice themselves), mounted their first trans-frontier raid into the "Zionist gangster-state".

Arafat's guerrillas were always a much greater challenge to the Arab regimes than they were to the Israelis. In theory, the regimes too were preparing to liberate Palestine - but by conventional military means in their own good time. The first "martyr" fell victim, characteristically, to the Jordanian army. Upon his return from a raid, Arafat himself had a spell in a Syrian jail, amid rumours that the new Syrian defence minister, one Hafiz al-Assad, wanted to hang him and all his comrades.

These early Arafat exploits, though mere pinpricks, helped furnish Israel with the pretext for seizing the remaining 22% of Palestine - East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza - which had eluded it in its "war of independence". Even after the shattering Arab defeat in the 1967 war, his guerrillas never put down roots in the newly occupied territories, let alone original Israel proper. Arafat is said to have made his getaway across the Jordan river disguised as a mother carrying a baby, a story that reinforced his growing reputation for the narrow escape and an uncanny sense of survival.

After the battle of Karameh, a small Jordanian town in which, on March 21 1968, an ill-armed band of guerrillas inflicted heavy casualties on a vastly superior force of Israeli invaders, the Fedayeen became the Arab world's darlings. Volunteers flocked to join it and Fatah became a state within the Jordanian state, with Arafat as its "spokesman". Soon he became chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), that assembly of generally docile notables which Egypt's President Nasser had established in 1964 as a way of keeping in check just such ardent young men as himself.

Too many fledgling "freedom-fighters" took to swaggering around the Jordanian capital Amman, advertising their ambition to replace the Hashemite kingdom with their own revolutionary order - and Arafat fell victim to his sudden, meteoric success. His movement suffered from organic defects typical of too-rapid growth - together with those of his individualistic, haphazard leadership style. In "Black September", 1970, King Hussein unleashed his Bedouin soldiers against him - an Arab army dealing Arafat the first of his great reverses.

In a new Lebanese exile, exploiting that country's divisions, he built himself a stronger power base. Yet he was now further from his natural Palestinian environment and his goal of "complete liberation" through "armed struggle". After the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and the partial Arab military comeback that engendered a serious bout of American peace-making, he began edging away from "revolution till victory" towards a "doctrine of stages". He sought what immediate gains he could from a political settlement without renouncing the historical right to all of Palestine. It was the beginning of a moderation that was to take further him than he could have imagined.

For a while his diplomatic successes overshadowed his military ones. In 1974, King Hussein, his historic Arab rival, recognised the PLO as "the sole legitimate spokesman of the Palestinian people". Two weeks later, he addressed the United Nations general assembly at its first full-dress debate on the "Palestine question" since 1952, becoming the first leader of a "national liberation movement" to be so honoured.

That triumph was followed by a dreary period of diplomatic stagnation - and more military-strategic reverses, inflicted first by Arabs, then Israelis, then Arabs again. He took sides in the Lebanese civil war. When his proteges, the Muslim-leftists, were getting the upper hand, Syria's President Assad switched sides, sending in his army to help the right-wing Christian Phalangists. The civil war's first phase ended in 1976 with the atrocious siege and fall of the Palestinian refugee camp of Tal al-Zaatar. At an emergency summit, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait rescued Arafat from Syrian onslaughts.

In 1982 it was the Israelis who invaded Lebanon. In the three-month siege of Beirut, they hunted the PLO leader in person, using F15s as flying assassination squads while their quarry slept on the beach and in parks to evade them. Two hundred people died when, with a laser-guided vacuum bomb, they flattened an apartment block he had left moments before.

With the loss of his last Lebanese politico-military power base, Tunis became his headquarters. Though the Israeli-encouraged, Phalangist pogrom of defenceless refugees in the camps of Sabra and Shatila followed his exile, these were not his personally bleakest moments. They came 15 months later after he had slipped back into the Syrian-controlled part of Lebanon, where Assad had helped foment a rebellion against him in the ranks of what was left of the Fatah guerrillas.

Arafat's bold stroke failed: bombarded by Israel from the sea, besieged by Syria, he sailed from Tripoli under a European-arranged safe passage. "Such," prematurely declared the New York Times, "is the bizarre ending of a movement that, for all its daring, never found a political vision."

Three years of seemingly growing irrelevance did indeed lie ahead. And in 1985 Israeli F15s killed 73 people at his seafront Tunis headquarters. His nose for danger had supposedly saved him yet again: he had been out "jogging" at the time. But his political fortunes were sinking to their lowest ebb - at Arab hands. At a 1987 summit, to his fury, Arab leaders for the first time put something other than Palestine - the Iraq-Iran war - at the top of their agenda.

But within weeks the great survivor was savouring a sweet recovery. With the spontaneous, non-armed intifada as his new asset, he found himself in a stronger position than the long, costly "armed struggle" ever conferred on him; the stones that youngsters hurled at Israeli soldiers were more potent than Kalashnikovs. In 1988, he solemnly proclaimed his adherence to the "two-state" solution, involving the Palestinians' renunciation of 78% of their original homeland. He recognised Israel's right to exist. There began a long dreamt of US-PLO dialogue; he called it the Palestinians' "passport to the world".

His historic offer was a delusion, a failed gamble, such was the continuing weakness of Palestinians - and Arabs. For Israel, he was the unregenerate terrorist; and Washington would not gainsay its imperious protege.

To enhance his bargaining power he looked more to a militarily powerful, increasingly militant Iraq. And when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he backed him, a fatuous miscalculation. In American eyes he forfeited much of the moral and diplomatic respectability he had slowly garnered. If he had taken the other side, he would have been better placed to secure Palestine's place in the "new world order" the US sought to bring into being.

Still, it was a measure of his personal ascendancy that he persuaded the Palestinians to go to the 1991 Madrid peace conference, the first time Israel and its Arab neighbours had talked to each other across a table. But they did so at the price of historic concessions. The Israelis chose which Palestinians they talked to: there was no place for PLO members, let alone Arafat, in the Palestinian delegation. They also largely set the agenda; the Americans backed their refusal to discuss anything suggesting the Palestinians might benefit from such a fundamental 20th-century right as "self-determination".

Madrid got nowhere. It became tempting to speculate that he was tiring of his devotion to the revolution, when, at 62, and to the often disapproving surprise of his people, he took a 28-year-old Palestinian Christian wife, Suha Tawil. Tempting, but wrong. He kept up his endlessly airborne routine. In 1992, his aircraft crash-landed during a Libyan sandstorm. The crew sacrificed themselves to save him - testimony to the loyalty he inspired.

One Jerusalem newspaper called his escape a "heavenly referendum"; for many Palestinians, the relief and joy was genuine enough. Yet before long it was the Israelis who, though they could never love him, re-cast him as an enemy who gave them much more than they had dared to hope.

He began the secret talks that astonished the world as the Oslo agreement. Some of his officials whispered that the crash, the shock it caused to faculties already going awry, had pushed him into this last extremity of "moderation". Weaknesses in Arafat the man now impinged, as never before, on the cause he embodied. Individualism, vanity, deviousness, authoritarianism, a mystical belief in his infallibility had long been apparent. But now it became clear just how primary a concern to Mr Palestine was the destiny of - Mr Palestine. What he wanted, and was ready to pay almost any price to secure, was to come back into the game from which the terms of the Madrid conference, the rise of the "insider" leadership, and the appeal of Hamas fundamentalists, threatened to exclude him.

In one stroke, he did come back. On September 13 1993 he won his accolade as a world statesman. In the signing ceremony on the White House lawn, the 64-year-old former "terrorist" chieftain shook hands with Yitzhak Rabin, prime minister of the Jewish state which he had once made it his mission to remove from the earth.

The price was immense. He claimed that, with Oslo, he had set in train a momentum inexorably leading to Israel's withdrawal from all the occupied territories; the Palestinians were on the road to statehood; he saw the beckoning spires and minarets of its capital, East Jerusalem.

Nine months later he did at least achieve a strictly physical proximity to them. He returned "home". But the self-governing areas he returned to were the merest fragments, in Jericho and Gaza, not merely of original 1948 Palestine, but of the post-1967 22% of it on which he was to build his state. And he came as collaborator as much as liberator.

Oslo provided for a series of "interim" agreements leading to "final-status" talks. An Israeli commentator said of the first of them: "when one looks through all the lofty phraseology, all the deliberate disinformation, the hundreds of pettifogging sections, sub-sections, appendices and protocols, one clearly recognises that the Israeli victory was absolute and Palestine defeat abject."

It went on like this for six years, long after it had become obvious that his "momentum" was working against, not for him. It had been bound to do so, because, in this dispensation that outlawed violence, spurned UN jurisprudence on the conflict, and consecrated a congenitally pro-Israeli US as sole arbiter of the peace process, the balance of power was more overwhelmingly in Israel's favour than ever. The "interim" agreements which should have advanced his conception of "final status" only advanced the Israelis' conception.

Meanwhile he was grievously wanting in that other great, complementary task - the building of his state in the making. His vaunted Palestinian "democracy" was no different from the Arab regimes he had so excoriated for the abuse of his own people and their own. More people were then dying, under torture and maltreatment, in Palestinian jails than in Israeli ones. His unofficial economic "advisers" threw up a ramshackle, nepotistic edifice of monopoly, racketeering and naked extortion which enriched them as it further impoverished society at large, and - being so inefficient - reduced the economic base for all. In 1999, unprecedentedly, 20 leading citizens denounced not just high officials and their business cronies, but the "president", who had "opened the doors to the opportunists to spread their rottenness through the Palestinian street".

With his fortunes again at such a dangerous low ebb, he was approaching another critical point: persist in policies and methods which were slowly undoing him, or revert, to some form of a strategy of militancy and confrontation - and rely anew on the support of his people, rather than the favour of the US, to carry it off. But it was less he, than Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, who imposed this choice.

Barak conceived the fantastically overweening notion of telescoping everything - the "interim" stages which had fallen hopelessly behind schedule as well as the "final status" ones which had been left to the end precisely because they were so intractable - into one climactic conclave. This would "end the 100-year conflict" at a stroke. In July 2000, at President Clinton's Camp David retreat, he laid before Arafat his take-it-or-leave-it historic compromise. In return for his solemnly abjuring all further claims on Israel, Israel would acquiesce in the emergence of a Palestine state. Or at least the pathetic travesty of one, covering even less than the 22% of the original homeland to which he had already agreed to confine it; without real sovereignty, East Jerusalem as its capital, or the return of refugees. Most of the detested, illegal settlements would remain.

After 15 days the conference collapsed. Arafat had stood firm, evidently deciding that it had been bad enough, and tactically ruinous, to cede historic goals temporarily; but quite another to cede them for all time, in the context of a final settlement. He might be Mr Palestine, but he had no Palestinian, Arab or Islamic mandate for ceding Jerusalem's sovereignty or abandoning the rights of four million refugees.

From this collapse grew the second intifada, essentially a popular revolt, first against the Israeli occupation and the realisation that the Oslo peace process would never bring it to an end, and, potentially, against Arafat and the Palestine Authority (PA) which had so long connived in the fiction that it could.

It took on its own life and momentum. Arafat was at best in nominal control; its true leaders were men of a younger generation such as Marwan Barghouti. As a member of the secular, mainstream Fatah organisation, he owed him formal allegiance, but his growing popularity, partly stemming from the decline in his boss's, gave him a measure of autonomy. His objective was confined to ending the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and that being so, he confined his followers' attacks to the soldiers and settlers who were the symbols and instruments of it.

The intifada's other activists were the fundamentalists of Hamas and Islamic jihad. They did not oppose Arafat, but nor did they owe any allegiance to him. Their suicide exploits inside Israel proper betokened the much larger meaning which the intifada carried for them: "complete liberation" to which, in his early years, Arafat had subscribed.

The death toll mounted beneath the overwhelmingly superior firepower the Israelis could bring to bear: from small-scale attrition of sniper and small arms fire, through systematic assassinations, to tanks, helicopter gunships and F16s unleashed on targets in densely populated civilian neighbourhoods.

Poverty, hatred and despair mounted too. Although their sufferings were paltry compared with those of the Palestinians, most Israelis saw the intifada as an existential threat. And they all blamed Arafat. For the peace-seeking left he had betrayed them and all their strivings, with a resort to violence just when a historic breakthrough seemed within grasp.

For the right, he had revealed himself once more as the unregenerate killer they always held him to be. This consensus led, in February 2001, to the rise of Ariel Sharon, the "hero" of Sabra and Shatila, at the head of Israel's most extreme, bellicose government in history.

Sharon had one ambition: to suppress the intifada by as much brute force as he could risk without antagonising the Americans or his Labour coalition partners beyond endurance. And he did not mind if in the process he was to bring Arafat and the PA down; he would escape from any obligation to pursue the peace process by eliminating the only party with whom he could pursue it.

Like Saddam's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, the events of September 11 2001 were another of those unforeseeable cataclysms that impinged on the Palestinian arena. This time Arafat was determined to put himself on the side of the angels. Endorsing America's "war on terror", he sought to end the intifada. His police arrested militants who broke the ceasefire and shot and killed demonstrators who protested against the Anglo-American assault on Afghanistan.

But it did not yield the tangible gain from the Americans in the shape of a serious, impartial peace initiative at last, on which he was banking. On the contrary, after a brief and humiliating attempt, under Arab pressure, to rein Sharon in, George Bush II, the most pro-Israeli president ever, did little more than look on as he re-conquered much of the West Bank, wreaked havoc on the infrastructure of the PA, and subjected Arafat himself to a humiliating siege in his headquarters in Ramallah. Only Arafat's office was left standing amid mounds of rubble.

In the summer of 2002, Bush pronounced Arafat unfit to rule - as "irrelevant", in other words, as Sharon said he was - and a prime target, along with Saddam Hussein, for those "regime changes" which Bush now envisaged across much of the Middle East.

In 2003, after overthrowing Saddam through full-scale war, he sought to oust Arafat by diplomatic, less dramatic means. He secured the appointment of a docile prime minister, Abu Mazin, who he hoped was ready to do what Arafat was not - go to war against the Islamic militants without any assurance that in return the Israelis would make any worthwhile concessions in the peace-making.

But Arafat, with his continued grip on the levers of power, joined Sharon, with his intransigence and continued "targeted killings", and drove the hapless and unpopular appointee to despair and resignation. With the total breakdown of the ceasefire that had come with the latest "road map", and a resumption of the suicide bombings, the Israeli government announced its intention to "remove" Arafat, this "absolute obstacle to any attempt at reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis."

"Removal" to a new exile or removal to "the other world" - that was the question. But this time the great survivor survived only to be carried off by what for him was the most extraordinary, because ordinary, of deaths.

Yasser Arafat (Muhammad Abdul Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini), politician, born August 4 1929; died November 11 2004

except that the palatsinian didn't had a countrey, and as same they can claim paris as their capitol.

Israel don't want arrafat buried there, because than his supporter will come to there and will be conflicts.

arrafat don't had israeli citizenship, and the palastinians don't had countrey so they can't gave him citizenship too.

Just because Israel doesn't recognize the Palestinian claims doesn't mean that others countries don't. As such, one can argue that the Palestinians DID have a country, DID have citizenship and so on...

Israel may not want Arafat buried there, but they need a legitimate legal reasons to stop it. Just because some bad citizens may come is not valid. You can always block them from coming to the procession.

Is Mr. Arafat dead?

He most assuredly is. And I hope the SOB will rot in hell.

"Mr." Arafat my a$$. Mr. is a term of respect this terrorist pig never deserved.

Yarafat has a family plot, not in the holy city. It is custom for people to be buried in thier family plots. it even has Koran/Biblical precident.
So why if not to cuase more problems bury the man in the holy city.

Y.arafat is great he helped stop this :mp5:

well, for israelies arrafat is like bin-ladin. if bin-ladin will die, aren't you would be happy?

I'd think people's sense of happiness would be best served if Bin Laden were captured and put on trial for his crimes. It is unseemly to crow over death, even the death of your 'enemies'.

I may not like a given politician or public official, but I would not stoop to professing happiness over their demise. That would serve no purpose other than self-indulgence. When Mr. Sharon (a politician I've personally seen little reason to admire) eventually goes to his great reward, I won't be hosting a garden party to celebrate the occasion.

There is a certain dignity in dying, and I am uncomfortable with the tendency amongst the living to gloat.

Y.arafat is great he helped stop this :mp5:
How'd he do that then? Use all the bullets himself?

Yarafat has a family plot, not in the holy city. It is custom for people to be buried in thier family plots. it even has Koran/Biblical precident.
So why if not to cuase more problems bury the man in the holy city.
You'd have to ask Arafat that. He's the one who made known his desire to be buried in Jerusalem.

Is it so much to ask as to grant the man's last wish, when it is so little?

One point you just made is wrong, sorry. The Palestinians used to have a country. Till the rest of the world de facto forced the Israelis on them in '48.no they don't. until 1948 england controlled that area, and france controlled other parts in the middle east on that time. before the britains who take over the area the uthmanes(turkish) controlled here, and you can continue with that for ever, or until you will go to the time that the jewish controlled that area (like the bible says, altough it isn't burdening). but the facts says that the palastinians never had a countrey.
the un tried to gave them one, in the decision that gave one to us, but (not like us) they refused to take it and decide attack Israel. they failed, we won and now we had a countrey, and they not. you loose their countrey because their hate to israel, and it isn't reasonable to come now and say: "after we try to kill you, we need a countrey because we had UN decision that gave us countrey and we refused to take, but now we want it.

I don't say that they don't deserve a countrey, but they don't have one, and this is the reality.

Just because Israel doesn't recognize the Palestinian claims doesn't mean that others countries don't. As such, one can argue that the Palestinians DID have a country, DID have citizenship and so on...

Israel may not want Arafat buried there, but they need a legitimate legal reasons to stop it. Just because some bad citizens may come is not valid. You can always block them from coming to the procession.
but the facts say they havn't. argue as you want they still dont had a countrey.
and how do you think we block them? this area is too sensitive right now. buried there arrafat is like light match on bombs bag, it will explode the area.

I'd think people's sense of happiness would be best served if Bin Laden were captured and put on trial for his crimes. It is unseemly to crow over death, even the death of your 'enemies'.

I may not like a given politician or public official, but I would not stoop to professing happiness over their demise. That would serve no purpose other than self-indulgence. When Mr. Sharon (a politician I've personally seen little reason to admire) eventually goes to his great reward, I won't be hosting a garden party to celebrate the occasion.

There is a certain dignity in dying, and I am uncomfortable with the tendency amongst the living to gloat.well there is some reasons:
1- the life here is so diffucult in the last years that people search for reasons to make party.
2-it is hot area (double meaning). reserches prove that in this areas people are more emotional than the normal.
3-don't think on enemy like man with other opinions, think this is sombody who try to kill you, and you think that all the bad in the world is his fault.
4-(HUMOR)- the other who try to kill us get holiday for themselves, so arrafat need at least party.

You'd have to ask Arafat that. He's the one who made known his desire to be buried in Jerusalem.

Is it so much to ask as to grant the man's last wish, when it is so little?
and if his last wish was to kill all the jewish, you will grant him too? this desire can't do something else, than explode the area with all the emotions that included in.

Some small enlightenment...

by Dennis Prager
July 27, 2004

"For the many readers who have requested a brief synopsis of the moral arguments in the Arab-Israeli conflict, I offer the following list of numerical data.

Number of times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Old Testament: over 700

Number of times Jerusalem is mentioned in the Koran: 0

Number of Arab leaders who visited Jerusalem when it was under Arab rule (1948 to 1967): 1

Number of Arab refugees who fled the land that became Israel: approximately 600,000

Number of Jewish refugees who fled Arab countries: approximately 600,000

Number of U.N. agencies that deal only with Palestinian refugees: 1

Number of U.N. agencies that deal with all the other refugees in the world: 1

Number of Jewish states that have existed on the land called Palestine: 3

Number of Arab or Muslim states that have existed on the land called Palestine: 0

Number of terrorist attacks by Israelis or Jews since 1967: 1

Number of terrorist attacks by Arabs or Muslims since 1967: thousands

Percentage of Jews who have praised the Jewish terrorist: approximately .1

Percentage of Palestinians who have praised Islamic terrorists: approximately 90

Number of Jewish countries: 1

Number of Jewish democracies: 1

Number of Arab countries: 19

Number of Arab democracies: 0

Number of Arab women killed annually by fathers and brothers in "honor killings": thousands

Number of Jewish women killed annually by fathers and brothers in "honor killings": 0

Number of Christian or Jewish prayer services allowed in Saudi Arabia: 0

Number of Muslim prayer services allowed in Israel: unlimited

Number of Arabs Israel allows to live in Arab settlements in Israel: 1,250,000

Number of Jews Palestinian Authority allows to live in Jewish settlements in Palestinian Authority: 0

Percentage of U.N. Commission on Human Rights resolutions condemning an Arab country for human rights violations: 0

Percentage of U.N. Commission on Human Rights resolutions condemning Israel for human rights violations: 26

Number of U.N. Security Council resolutions on the Middle East between 1948 and 1991: 175

Number of these resolutions against Israel: 97

Number of these resolutions against an Arab state: 4

Number of Arab countries that have been members of the U.N. Security Council: 16

Number of times Israel has been a member of the U.N. Security Council: 0

Number of U.N. General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel: 322

Number of U.N. General Assembly resolutions condemning an Arab country: 0

Percentage of U.N. votes in which Arab countries voted with the United States in 2002: 16.6

Percentage of U.N. votes in which Israel voted with the United States in 2002: 92.6

Percentage of Middle East Studies professors who defend Zionism and Israel: approximately 1.

Percentage of Middle East Studies professors who believe in diversity on college campuses: 100

Number of Muslims in the world: more than 1 billion

Number of Muslim demonstrations against Islamic terror: approximately 2

Percentage of people who argue that the Jewish state has no right to exist who also believe some other country has no right to exist: 0

Percentage of people who argue that of all the countries in the world, only the Jewish state has no right to exist and yet deny they are anti-Jewish: approximately 100"

To the people who keep defending terrorists who use human bombs, children as cannon-fodder and meat shields against Israel :

Please.

Be honest just once in your lives. Admit that your hatred towards jews is stronger than your hatred for terrorists.

You'll feel so much better.

/off to vomit just thinking about your type.

Dear friend, assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups, as some might say. Don't presume to know what or how I, or anyone else for that matter, feels about Judaism, the Jewish people, or the political State of Israel. You do a disservice not only to yourself, but to those around you, sir.

I am being honest with you, and not for the first time in my life, either. I don't hate you. I don't hate Judaism. I don't hate Jews. I am not enamored of the political State of Israel, but that's light-years from being anti-Semitic.

I won't bother wasting anyone's time defending the right of the State of Israel to exist, it exists - and does a damn good job of defending itself. My words, my opinions, mean nothing in the context of Isreal's right to exist.

I'll point out, however, as I have in previous posts, that the political State of Israel is not the Jewish people, nor is it Judaism - and Judaism, nor the Jewish people, are the political State of Israel. These are not mutually interchangeable words, they are related concepts. Distort their meanings at your own peril - for this is the path down which a certain European power travelled down to the harm of all, over sixty years ago.

I'd think people's sense of happiness would be best served if Bin Laden were captured and put on trial for his crimes.

I agree - it would have been better for Arafat to have been tried for his war crimes and executed like Eichmann. But as he escaped justice, it's perfectly reasonable to be happy that the world has been spared Arafat's butchery and insane hatred. Now Arafat is dead, there is a hope for peace (even the fascist Arab league is suggesting so) which shows you what kind of a monster Arafat was.

Dear friend, assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups, as some might say. Don't presume to know what or how I, or anyone else for that matter, feels about Judaism, the Jewish people, or the political State of Israel. You do a disservice not only to yourself, but to those around you, sir.

I am being honest with you, and not for the first time in my life, either. I don't hate you. I don't hate Judaism. I don't hate Jews. I am not enamored of the political State of Israel, but that's light-years from being anti-Semitic.

I won't bother wasting anyone's time defending the right of the State of Israel to exist, it exists - and does a damn good job of defending itself. My words, my opinions, mean nothing in the context of Isreal's right to exist.

I'll point out, however, as I have in previous posts, that the political State of Israel is not the Jewish people, nor is it Judaism - and Judaism, nor the Jewish people, are the political State of Israel. These are not mutually interchangeable words, they are related concepts. Distort their meanings at your own peril - for this is the path down which a certain European power travelled down to the harm of all, over sixty years ago.

Are you a spin doctor?
Do you think Hamas and Hizbullah hate only "the political state of Israel", as you put it so nicely?

What about the rise of antisemitism in france, fueled by the strong, enormous mobilization for the arab population there against the state of Israel? Diaspora jews wish they could hear less about how "their" country behaves, but it is FORCED on them.

3-don't think on enemy like man with other opinions, think this is sombody who try to kill you, and you think that all the bad in the world is his fault.


A man who tries to kill me must have an opposing opinion, one which I would most certainly want to hear, should he be so moved as to attempt murder upon my person. I wouldn't assume that all the bad in the world is his fault - I would wish to engage him in constructive dialogue, most likely with a third party in attendance, if his desire to kill me were so great.

I'm not trying to frustrate, GI - merely illustrating my (non-violent) sensibilities. I think it takes far more bravery to work out solutions and compromises with an 'enemy' than it does to load a rifle.

Are you a spin doctor?
Do you think Hamas and Hizbullah hate only "the political state of Israel", as you put it so nicely?

I think they know very well that the aim of Hamas, Hizb'allah et al is the complete extermination of Jews worldwide. A popular chant on pro-Palestinian rallies in Europe these days is 'Hamas, hamas! All Jews to the gas!'*.

How that fits in to the 'anti-zionist, not anti-semitic' framework I have no idea.

One look at the Hamas charter should be enough to tell you that they are not interested in political anything. They are pursuing a war of genocide - first Jews, then everyone else.

* see:
http://www.lcje.net/bulletins/2002/70/70_09.html
http://haganah.us/hmedia/euasr-15.html
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/archives/000344.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3361-1327617,00.html

Are you a spin doctor?
Do you think Hamas and Hizbullah hate only "the political state of Israel", as you put it so nicely?

What about the rise of antisemitism in france, fueled by the strong, enormous mobilization for the arab population there against the state of Israel? Diaspora jews wish they could hear less about how "their" country behaves, but it is FORCED on them.

I can't speak for what Hamas and Hezbollah hate, Tcherbeb. They can, however.

I can only offer opinion as regards the spectre of anti-Semitism in France. That such anti-Semitism is fueled by the 'strong, enormous mobilization for the arab population there against the state of Israel' is supposition on your part, and could just as conceivably be labelled 'spin', Tcherbeb.

Rather than try to persuade me that I am somehow complicit in a worldwide anti-Semitic conspiracy, why not instead focus your energies on opening dialogues between yourself and the people who you feel are oppressing you?

I've already gone on record as feeling no hatred toward either Judaism, the Jewish people, or for that matter, the State of Israel. I feel little warmth toward the State of Israel, but that is merely a temporal affair. Should Israel eventually mend its' fences, so to speak, my feelings might be subject to reassessment, but as it stands, no, I'm not feeling that warm tingly sensation. Still, that's an awful long haul from feeling hatred.

I agree - it would have been better for Arafat to have been tried for his war crimes and executed like Eichmann. But as he escaped justice, it's perfectly reasonable to be happy that the world has been spared Arafat's butchery and insane hatred. Now Arafat is dead, there is a hope for peace (even the fascist Arab league is suggesting so) which shows you what kind of a monster Arafat was.

The word 'monster' is a dangerous one. By referring to another human as a 'monster' you downplay their negative actions as being wholly aberrant, the terrible exception to human norms. It not only dehumanizes terrible acts, it sets the stage for further human suffering. Consider Hitler and his cronies, a group so terrible as to be synonymous with the word 'monsters'.

Their actions were negative, their legacy stomach-turning, but to simply call them 'monsters' is to miss the point entirely. The harshest dose of reality is to bear in mind that these men were just that - men, men as capable of kissing a baby as they were capable of commiting genocide. If you think of them only as a monster, you are telling yourself that only monsters are capable of such madness. By telling yourself that only monsters are capable of inflicting said madness, you ignore the possibility that other men - men as capable of kissing babies as Hitler and company - could rise to power only to commit to actions just as monstrous as any seen in human history.

The bitch is, as much as you may not have liked Arafat, to simply label him a 'monster' is to set the stage for another Arafat to emerge. Best to bear in mind that he was, like all of us are, a human being, with all being human entails. There's a little monster inside everyone, and it's something we all need desperately to guard against, lest we see further suffering and hatred in our species.

The word 'monster' is a dangerous one.

No need to take it quite so literally. On many levels Arafat was a very dull and pathetic little man, so I could have advanced the Arendtian position that he exemplified the banality of evil. But that might lead us to have to deconstruct the word 'evil' and Arafat frankly isn't worth it. Whatever term you want to use, Arafat's death has led to a renewed hope for peace and have given countless people the chance to escape from the misery he inflicted upon them.