Arafat's Dark Legacy

Not sure which forum to put this in (considering the new
political forum). I opted for here because I think it's a conspiracy
that the media wants to spin Arafat into a savior or a hero.
He definately isn't. Mods - if you feel this should be elsewhere,
please move. Like I said, I'm not sure where things go now.
***********************************************
Arafat's Dark Legacy
One minute video

HonestReporting.com/FrontPageMagazine.com
January 10, 2005

Arafat's Dark Legacy

Anyone who seriously looks at the life of Arafat, will eventually come to one conclusion.

The man was a terrorist, pure and simple....and possibly the greatest manipulator of international politics since Adolf Hitler. It still boggles my mind, that when I was a kid, Arafat's name was a SYNONYM for terrorist, and yet I see the generations after me being told he was this great force for peace!!! It's rather disgusting to be honest....especially when such acts aren't accusations, but FACT. There are even terrorist factions who were FOUNDED by him, and continue to carry out acts of terrorism in his name. Absolutely stupifying....

I agree that Arafat was a terrorist and that he was a bad influence on the Palestinian people.

But at the same time he was their leader and to them he will always be a hero.

For the only reason that he fought against Israel, that actually perpetuated the resentment of those two countries.

Originally posted by marg6043
For the only reason that he fought against Israel, that actually perpetuated the resentment of those two countries.

I'm not sure if I follow ya' here Marg. Would you please
expand upon this? Thanks.

He was against Israel and that is what the people of palestinian saw as their cause thanks to Arafat he never really care much of any good relations with Israel.

And Israel never gave him the time of the day, that added more resentment to the palestinian people.

Isreal targeted him many times, and in the eyes of the palestinians it was a act against them.

And Israel never gave him the time of the day, that added more resentment to the palestinian people.

Not so...at Camp David, Isreal was willing to concede to MANY Palestinian demands, including the establishment of a Palestinian State!!! Arafat made it clear that the only Palestinian state he wants is on the ashes of Isreal, and that wasn't going to happen folks.

Arafat was the single-most hindrance to the Isreali/Palestinian peace process, and with his death, perhaps now there is a chance for that to actually happen.

Though, I wouldn't count on it, especially if you're a Nostrodamus fan and recall what he said about "Mabbas"....

The struggle between those two coutries is a biblical struggle nothing including a new leader will bring peace to their lands.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Not so...at Camp David, Isreal was willing to concede to MANY Palestinian demands, including the establishment of a Palestinian State

Israel was willing to concede to ALL Palestinian demands, except
they wouldn't give the Palestinians all of Jerusalem. Israel said they
would share it. That was rather mature of Israel... to offer to share that
which was most disputed. But because Arafat couldn't get it all, he wouldn't agree to peace. And because Arafat wouldn't agree, hundreds
more have died since then and thousands more wounded.

Considering everything Arafat had done to the Jews, (see video
that I linked to) including his determination to make Israel cease to
exhist ... I'd say that Israel was acting in a very gratious way
at the Clinton Camp David talks. Heck .... when asked why Arafat
refused peace, even President Clinton said 'I don't know, I just
don't know. He got just about everything.'

He's gone. Period. Looks like Abbas may well adopt a more realisitc approach towards co-existence. But to be fair, Israel should also take the opportunity now to assist the Palestinian people towards a better life. If this can be achieved, then I believe this will be the true measure of Arafat, failing to learn how to co-exist.

Originally posted by marg6043
But at the same time he was their leader and to them he will always be a hero.

Similiarly, some will allways see Hitler as the great defender against the raveages of soviet/communist global dominion and the uniter of greater germany. Hell, people still think Mao was a good guy.

Originally posted by marg6043
The struggle between those two coutries is a biblical struggle nothing including a new leader will bring peace to their lands.

Keep in mind that it wasn't a biblical struggle until modern times tho!

The native jews in israel and the people in palestine who actually are palestinian have apparently been interbreeding for a long time. THere was genetic study done (or was it a blood groups study?) not too long ago that noted they were more closely related to each other than other outsiders. Disturbingly, there was so much of an uproar that the editors of the journal instructed people who had it, individuals and libraries, to cut the page out.

Anyway, the jews and muslims haven't been engaged in some eternal struggle to eradicate each other. THere are tribes amoung the muslims that proudly proclaim descendancy from the lost jewish tribes, all the way in afghanistan I believe! Obviously they have nothing to do with them in reality, but the cultural myth of that lineage can't be somethign that survives if they are truly so inherently antagonistic. ALso, if the muslims wanted to destroy the jews, well, they had absolute control of that entire region, in a time when there'd've been no one to stop them and no ability for the jews to fight back. But they didn't. Because they really don't give a damn.

The israeli-palestinian struggle is a (relatively) modern problem. This 'cycle of eternal violence' junk is just some b/s that defeatists and cynics use to reassure themselves as to why there hasn't been any recent progress.

Israel was willing to concede to ALL Palestinian demands, except
they wouldn't give the Palestinians all of Jerusalem.

I think you have it backwards no? They gave the Pals the ability to establish a capital in jerusalem but wouldn't grant the right of return no? EIther way, yes, the Israelis have offered all that is sensible, short of unconditional surrender. Heck, they won the war, they have every right to occupy the west bank.

Israel should also take the opportunity now to assist the Palestinian people towards a better life

They'll be doing no such thing. They've decided to build a wall and check people passing thru it. The Pals have lost their only barganing chip, terror, and now the Israelis will be able to send incursions into the West Bank everytime the wall is attacked and a bomb goes off at a check point, rather than inside of Israel. The palestinians have lost the struggle in its entirety. They haven't been able to get their neighbor arab nations on their side, not enough to do anything, and haven' t been able to get any real independence on which a state could be made. They might very well become the first people in history, short of the spartan helots, to live in a state of perpetual occupation.

Its truly astounding. Its been, what, nearly ten years since camp david, and 30 odd years since the big war? And they have absolutely nothing to show for it, outside of being more centrally organized amoung themselves. Meanwhile the Israelis have peace with their most powerful neighbhors, nukes, a good economy, and a wall that can actually stop the terrorism.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Israel was willing to concede to ALL Palestinian demands, except
they wouldn't give the Palestinians all of Jerusalem.

I think you have it backwards no? They gave the Pals the ability to establish a capital in jerusalem but wouldn't grant the right of return no? EIther way, yes, the Israelis have offered all that is sensible, short of unconditional surrender. Heck, they won the war, they have every right to occupy the west bank.

What I read said that Israel offered East Jerusalem to the Palestinians
and that Israel would keep West Jerusalem. Of course, that could be
a different proposal than the one you have read. Either way ... a lot
was offered by Israel and curiously rejected by Arafat.

I completely agree with you. Israel offered all that was sensible
(and honestly ... a lot that I thought was overboard and unsensible).
And yes, they have every right to occupy the west bank. Israel won
the war (that the arabs started). Israel has a right to self defense
which includes weeding out homicide bombers and terrorists from the
land that they won in a war aggressed against them.

Amazing really, that the "biblical" conflict really boils down to a paternity issue, isn't it?

i.e. whether the descendents of Isaac or Ishmael should be granted the land of Abraham, They'd be cracking me up if they weren't so busy killing each other....

Israel is turning into a major sticking point for the US internationally. What I don't think anyone understands is we aren't protecting Israel from the rest of the world. We are protecting the rest of the world from Israel. You'd think the palestinians would've learned from the last few wars... If Israel ever came close to actually losing I think they would deny the country to anyone aka bio weapons or nukes. Arafat and the pals need to get a grip, Israel won they lost... It's not like Americans ever seriously consider giving land back to their Natives.

Just as a note that may sound harsh and while I don't agree with everything America did in the past i.e. slavery and slaughter of Indians. I do firmly believe that just because your people have historical claims to x land that is now a sovereign nation, it does not justify spilling blood to try and retake what is now someone elses.

Originally posted by Gazrok
whether the descendents of Isaac or Ishmael should be granted the land of Abraham,

They'd be cracking me up if they weren't so busy killing each other....

Wasn't Abraham the one that went on a walk with his son, and then
when they couldn't find a ram to sacrifice to God, Abraham decided to
put his own son on the altar and burn him up in a sacrifice to God?
Then, the 'voice of God' told him not to do it (after he had the sacrifice
set up) and then Abraham just happened to find a ram caught in a
bush so he sacrificed the ram instead.

What do you think happened at home that night? hmmm? The
kid comes running in after the 'walk'. Sarah asks 'how was your
walk with dad, dear?' The kid tells mom about dad tieing him up
and putting him on the altar, etc. etc.

Don't you think that Sarah kept the son faaaaaaaaaaaar away
from dear old dad after that? Betchya' she was looking into
military schools (if they had 'em) just to keep her son away
from dad.

Abraham was nutz. I half wonder if the nut gene was passed
down through the ages to all his decendents and that's why
they are fighting .... because they are inherently crazy.

He's dead and hopefully will soon be forgot. The only people I know that would consider him a hero would be the Palestinian people because if not for Arafat their cause for a Palestinian state would not be as vocal as it is today. Arafat was a menace to society. Does anyone find it strange that Arab mentality is a reactionist mentality? Is that a fair assesment?