# Terrorist Deathwatch: Yasser Arafat



## I_am_John_Galt (4 Nov 2004)

Reuters is reporting him on his way to his raisins, although the PLO says it ain't so: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=226539

His record suggests HE _might_ have been the greatest obstacle to peace in Israel/Palkestine ... without getting into the validity of that statement, does anyone care to comment on the prospects for peace with him out of the picture: is there real hope for peace or does the power vacuum mean that it is all going to hit the fan?


----------



## winchable (4 Nov 2004)

I think Arafat was to a certain extent simply a figurehead and could have easily been any other person.
I don't believe things will change much and probably continue in the same way they have now, despite what we might hear because I believe that people will try and put a good spin on his death by showing all of the "progress" that has been made since his passing.
Fact of the matter is both sides need to change their tune and regardless of whether Arafat is alive or not (though we can be certain Israel will be happy with his death) the feelings that motivated him will continue to exist.


----------



## QORvanweert (4 Nov 2004)

As long as they are free to practise their religion, I think that all these palestinians would in fact be much more content living in and working under Israeli rule.. they could then negotiate their point from a perspective that the Israeli's could deal with on a rational level.


----------



## winchable (4 Nov 2004)

> I think that all these palestinians would in fact be much more content living in and working under Israeli rule..



Not ragging on your point of view here brother but I know *alot* of Palestinians and they won't even put "Israel" as their country of Birth, they simply put the city they were born in since they can't put "Palestine."

Not militant about it mind you but I believe they do have some right to refuse Israeli rule.


----------



## QORvanweert (4 Nov 2004)

Che- point taken, 'rule' was the wrong word. but what if they were in a situation that gave them equal voting rights and liberties as the Israeli's and had equal rights to run for office?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (4 Nov 2004)

"Confusion" over his status: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/11/04/arafat_health041104.html

From that article:

On Wednesday, his aides said he sent a message of congratulations to U.S. President George W. Bush for winning a second term, urging him to help bring peace to the Middle East.

When told by a reporter during his first news conference after winning re-election that Arafat had died, Bush responded: "My first reaction is God bless his soul. My second reaction is we will continue to work for a free Palestinian state that is at peace with Israel." 

I find this interesting because:
1.  He (or at least his aides) is congratulating Bush(!!)
2.  Bush is saying nice stuff about him(!!!!!)
3.  Bush is confirming the "free Palestinian state" idea.

I wonder if he is/will trying to atone for the past (I'm thinking about Barak's offer of a state and the subsequent Second Intifada).


----------



## winchable (4 Nov 2004)

> Che- point taken, 'rule' was the wrong word. but what if they were in a situation that gave them equal voting rights and liberties as the Israeli's and had equal rights to run for office?



It sounds nice, but if they had to call themselves Israeli and adopt the Israeli flag and put Israel on their passport and a plethora of other things, I doubt it would work.

I honestly think Arafat wanted peace as he got on, I'm not calling him a saint at all, but at the same time he had to be a bit of a hardass when it came to dealing with the Israelis in order to maintain a notion of Palestinian solidarity.
So we see him being thickheaded and refusing offers, alot still see him as not submitting to Israeli rule and being a proud Palestinian.


----------



## bubba (4 Nov 2004)

any idea who's going to replace him,or is it to early to speculate.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (4 Nov 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> I honestly think Arafat wanted peace as he got on, I'm not calling him a saint at all, but at the same time he had to be a bit of a hardass when it came to dealing with the Israelis in order to maintain a notion of Palestinian solidarity.
> So we see him being thickheaded and refusing offers, alot still see him as not submitting to Israeli rule and being a proud Palestinian.



His rhetoric did seem to soften a little in last couple of years, but actions speak louder than words ... I suspect he, and too many others, equate 'Palestinian pride' with anti-Semitism!


----------



## winchable (4 Nov 2004)

Well off of the top of my head I can think of 2 possible replacements.
There's Abu Mazen Mahmoud Abbas, who was Prime Minister for a while.
To many he's a moderate, although his PhD thesis was about links between the Zionist movements and the nazis.
He's never been very popular with Palestinians at all as he's seen as being willing to give into Israeli Demands. Although it is very interesting to note that he was also the brains behind Arafats charisma for many years.

Abu Alaa Ahmed Korei
Will be the interim leader after Arafats death without question.
Very wealthy compared with most Palestinians and is sort of seen as an aristocrat. He did however speak out against the corruption in the PLO and resigned because Arafat wouldn't yield to the Cabinet enough.

You're very right John, and I see it every day. The problem is it is too easily labeled anti-semitism and in many cases it walks the fine line between Being extremely critical of Israel and zionism, which has some right to it, and being outright anti-semite(Though technically palestinians are semite too) which is ignorant. I know Palestinians who dislike Israelis and Israeli government but sometimes get carried away and go off on an unfair tangent, that being said I know Palestinians who have married Israelis and Jews because they can draw the distinction between people and their government.


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Nov 2004)

There will not doubt be some kind of a power vacuum after he carks it, but what disgusts me is already some Israelis are partying in the streets celebraing Arafat's demise, and I compare this to radical muslims partying in the streets after 11 Sep. Talk about fueling the fire!

My prediction there will never be peace in the region (at least not in my lifetime our your children's). Hatred on both sides are as bad as each other, and its passed down from one generation to the next.

When will it end?

You tell me.

Wes


----------



## Gunnerlove (4 Nov 2004)

Lets conduct an experiment in democracy. Lets see how both countries will get along when each is run by an elected proportional government. 

It's so crazy it might just work.


Or we could just run everyone in the middle east through sharps training.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (4 Nov 2004)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> what disgusts me is already some Israelis are partying in the streets celebraing Arafat's demise,



I haven't seen any reports of this ... where are you hearing it from?


----------



## Slim (4 Nov 2004)

SHARP training...Ahh, I don;t think somehow that that would work at all. (F#ck, it doesn't even work here...Except by fear maybe)

I think that Middle-East peace is a very fragile thing and there will always be those on both sides who don't want it and will do all they can to keep everyone inflamed.

Its a shame because both cultures have lots to offer the world...

Watch and shoot I guess...

Slim


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (4 Nov 2004)

I've never really kept up to speed on the Israel/Palestine conflict, and figured Id google it and get a little more in depth description of whats going on, but sadly, all I find is info so threaded with bias that I cant decifer whether its valid or not.

Does anyone have any links or such that could lead me in the right direction?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (4 Nov 2004)

Sh0rtbUs said:
			
		

> Does anyone have any links or such that could lead me in the right direction?



I find that wikipedia is pretty good for this kind of stuff (where articles are disputed, it says so, but I think that the biases generally offset).  Here's a couple of entries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_a_Palestinian_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_conflict


----------



## Acorn (4 Nov 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> It sounds nice, but if they had to call themselves Israeli and adopt the Israeli flag and put Israel on their passport and a plethora of other things, I doubt it would work.



The State of Israel can never allow it. If the Palestinian "right of return" is accepted, even if they become citizens of Israel, the state would cease to exisit. Palestinians far outnumber Israelis, so odds are, after the return, there would be one democratic election, then the extinction of the Jewish State. 

Acorn


----------



## winchable (4 Nov 2004)

> The State of Israel can never allow it. If the Palestinian "right of return" is accepted, even if they become citizens of Israel, the state would cease to exisit. Palestinians far outnumber Israelis, so odds are, after the return, there would be one democratic election, then the extinction of the Jewish State.



Agreed, absolutely bang on.
The question is, what does this mean for future prospects of peace or a democratic state of some kind in the region.


----------



## Acorn (4 Nov 2004)

There is only a two state solution. However, the problem is whether a viable Palestinian state can be created and Israeli security concerns can be satisfied. The issues look to be mutually exclusive.

Acorn


----------



## winchable (4 Nov 2004)

Doesn't it seem strange at all though that if the majority of the people living in the Area were to vote in a real democratic election than it would be different.
I don't know, I'm a firm believe in natural governments which represent the majority of the people.

I mean I don't want anyone to take me as being an anti-semite, quite the opposite I'm a member of the Jewish student society (The token Muslim as we like to say) and it's not because I'm being confrontational it's because I genuinely enjoy the Jewish community and wish we could all get along.
I just have to be critical of Israel, not because I'm a muslim but because I'm a human.


----------



## pappy (5 Nov 2004)

One state would have worked in 1948, if the plaistinians had stayed, they where screwed but the Arab league that promised a short war / end of Israel.  opps they left and lost.
unfortunity too much blood and water passed under the bridge for one-state option to work.  Two states is the only option, Arafat pissed that chance way at Camp David, the Israelis offered them 90% of what they asked for.  He screwed up big time.  Right of return will never be a option.  Forget it, will never happen.

Interesting side note....  the Palistinians living in the refugee camps get monthy check from the UN (via Uncle Sammy), tax free, about $20,000 / year.  97% of that from US tax payers, 3% from all thier friends in the arab world, kinda funny huh?

The Palastinians got played for suckers by the Arabs for the last 50 years.

Simple solution, that probaley no one will acept..... Gaza to Eygpt.... West Bank (at least what Israel will give up) to Jordon.  And peace treaties all around.

A complicated issue, not easy to solve in a newsgroup.....

But to Arafat.... see ya!  say hello to Allah for me or the Devil, my money is he's got a red suit with his name on it in hell.

In the long run the Palastinians are better off without him....

I just wonder who posioned him?


----------



## winchable (5 Nov 2004)

> But to Arafat.... see ya!  say hello to Allah for me or the Devil, my money is he's got a red suit with his name on it in heck



Aw, come on pappy even Bush said "God Bless his soul"

Actually if you think about it that's kind of an interesting statement because presidents always say "God Bless America" so is it the same kind of blessing or is it a different half blessing from the one America gets.


----------



## Acorn (5 Nov 2004)

pappy said:
			
		

> Two states is the only option, Arafat pissed that chance way at Camp David, the Israelis offered them 90% of what they asked for.   He screwed up big time.   Right of return will never be a option.   Forget it, will never happen.



Ah, yes, the 90% solution. Tell me, what was the "90%?" I hear this argument so often, but as of yet, no-one is defining what the 90% comprises, and what the 10% consists of.



> Interesting side note....   the Palistinians living in the refugee camps get monthy check from the UN (via Uncle Sammy), tax free, about $20,000 / year.   97% of that from US tax payers, 3% from all thier friends in the arab world, kinda funny huh?



Really? Care to be more specific? $20k/year is a huge amount in that part of the world. One wonders what they do with it all.

The Palestinians have been pawns in the regional power games, played as much by the Arab states as by others. That's true. But there's a lot of misinformation and exaggeration out there. Try having a look at both sides objectively.

Acorn


----------



## xFusilier (5 Nov 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> Actually if you think about it that's kind of an interesting statement because presidents always say "God Bless America" so is it the same kind of blessing or is it a different half blessing from the one America gets.



Haha probably one of the better questions asked on this forum.

I personally love the term "terrorist" especially used in the debate about Israel and Palestine, especially when you consider the man that purpotrated the act which defined terrorism in its modern form was Menachim Begin.

Arafat, in his current form, was really a creation of the Israelis.   We shouldn't forget that while the intifada was occuring in the West Bank in 1987, Arafat, courtesy of the Arab League was enjoying an all expense paid vacation in Tunisia.   The Israeli's rather than deal with the leaders of the intifada, chose to seek Arafat as their partner for peace.   Personally I think the reason for this was that they (the israelis) knew that Arafat (out of pride, and political capital) would never make peace with Israel without the right of return being included in any final settlement.   The right of return of course will never be supported by the US as a result no peace agreement.

Arafat will go down in history as a flawed man, then again none of the "founding fathers" of the US were perfect either.   Arafat did manage to move the palestininan question to the forefront in world affairs, and more than likely that will be his legacy.   To be certain the man spent his last years as nothing more than a tin pot dictator of a quasi-country, but when all is said in done, he managed to move the impetus for a palestinian state along.

The question now is who will take over?

Unfourtunately events as of late will most likely dictate that it will be a fundementalist muslim.   A simple index on the support/radicalization/religous fervour of the Arab would is to look at the women.   When they're wearing the hijab, the populace is polarized along religous lines, when their not a more secular view is present.   I was struck be the difference in the frequency of covering in 1995 when I lived in Bethlehem versus what I see in the news (problems with media bias accounted for)


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Nov 2004)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> I haven't seen any reports of this ... where are you hearing it from?



I heard this last night on Network 10's late news. Maybe try reuters (did I spell that right?). It was a legit report, or maybe do a search on google or something.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Nov 2004)

I'm older than most on this board, but not as old as some. I watched Arafat go from a suicide bomber with no balls to kill himself, to a rebel leader, to the head of a sanctioned UN party, to diplomat, to head of state without changing stripes or being duly and lawfully elected. All under the auspices of the UN.

As far as I'm concerned, he's never wanted peace. No matter the cost or concession. Unfortunately, he's fomented the same ideology into the next two generations. 
In order to break the chain of violence, it will take two more generations. All we can do is prepare for it, accept it and try to work around it. 

I wish it weren't so, but for some, the word peace is not in their vocabulary. The cause (whatever that may be) is all, and all is the cause, no matter the sanity of it.

In my mind, he's on his way out, So be it. He's just another talking head that has got an audience to do his bidding. Good riddance, and hopefully his replacement will do better.

We can only hope.


----------



## Guardian (5 Nov 2004)

His replacement could hardly do any worse.....

But as long as the EU- and UN-funded PA educational system keeps twisting young minds by glorifying the "martyrs" and calling Jews "pigs" and so on, the next generations of Palestinian leaders can't be expected to embrace peace any more than their predecessors.

But yes, good riddance....


----------



## Shec (5 Nov 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> The question is, what does this mean for future prospects of peace or a democratic state of some kind in the region.




There is a democratic state in the region - its called Israel.     At least 6 elected Israeli Arabs sit as Members of the Knesset (Parliament)   and they are often openly and freely critical of government policy.   

Interesting how Arab democracies are few and far between but that is their choice as people tend to get the kind of government they deserve. It is up to the Palestinians to create their own state as they see fit in a 2 state solution.   Realisitically there is no other way given the legacy of   fears, hatreds,   and demographics.   

As far as peace between   separate sovereign states goes, the best prospects lie in trade and commerce as post-peace treaty Israeli relations with Jordan and Egypt exemplify.

As far as the old baby-killer Arafat is concerned - indeed good riddance.     Did you ever notice how, while not perfect, at the least the soldiers of the   IDF stand in front of their children while the PA and their Hamas associates stand  behind  theirs.


----------



## winchable (5 Nov 2004)

At no time did I defend the PA the PLO or any government in the Middle East as I feel they're all dropping the ball, so you're preaching to the choir.


----------



## Shec (5 Nov 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> At no time did I defend the PA the PLO or any government in the Middle East as I feel they're all dropping the ball, so you're preaching to the choir.




Rest assured Che I do not accuse you of defending any existing institution that I do not subscribe to.   However, like you I reserve the right to advance   my opinion   which advocates what I think to be a pragmatic approach given the prevailing circumstances   - 2 states with trade and commercial relations being the best potential guarantor of peaceful co-existance.     And rather than "preaching to the choir" that adds another dimension to the debate.

Tell me, what other prescription seems to have worked in that part of the world?     I submit it is not unrealistic.     In addition to the above -cited trade relations   between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan have you ever seen people from all backgrounds trading in a Shuk (a market/bazaar)?     Everybody gets along as everybody wins.     What some people might call crass consumerism does much more than politics and rhetoric   to keep people alive and prosperous.


----------



## winchable (5 Nov 2004)

The 2 state solution would be the most pragmatic approach there is no question.
There's something I've often wondered which is how the land would be divided in said case? According to population? 



> In addition to trade between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan have you ever seen people from all backgrounds trading in a Shuk (a market/bazaar)?   Everybody gets along as everybody wins.



It never was the people that were the problem I can agree with you on that.
I've seen Jews Christians and Muslims haggle over prices, and they weren't fighting because of religion or race...it was because the guy was charging way too much for vegetables.


----------



## Shec (5 Nov 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> The 2 state solution would be the most pragmatic approach there is no question.
> There's something I've often wondered which is how the land would be divided in said case? According to population?



If it were my call:  With the exception of the Golan Heights (soley because of their strategic value)  I would be happy to see a return to pre-1967 borders with Jerusalem declared an international city - a sovereign city state if you will - given its importance to 3 major religions.


----------



## winchable (5 Nov 2004)

I read about that the other day for the first time and do agree.
The Christians aren't given much recognition in the argument either though I believe they make up quite a substantial part of the population.

Unfortunately there people on both sides who have lost sight of the reason they're fighting and forget what they're religion is supposed to be about.

Shalom


----------



## Shec (5 Nov 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> Shalom



Salaam


----------



## Ty (5 Nov 2004)

Shec said:
			
		

> Salaam



Being born in the region and having to endure the pointless bloodshed, I have to say that was really one of the most poignant exchanges I've ever experienced.  People like you are the TRUE solution to the problem!  

Jews and Muslims share many similar religious idealogies, same cultural values, same family values, same skin tone, same affinity to smoking, same roots.  And same pig-headedness. Maybe one day we can shed the latter.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Nov 2004)

Quote,
And same pig-headedness. ;D......I'll bet another word would probably been a better fit. 
[couldn't resist THAT one]


----------



## winchable (6 Nov 2004)

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109226/

Little article on him.
No update on his status it seems.


----------



## winchable (8 Nov 2004)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/international/middleeast/09arafat.html


Oy vey you should see the reaction to this I'm seeing within the community.


----------



## Acorn (9 Nov 2004)

I don't have NYT access.

In any case Che, can you summarize the reaction?

(love the "oy vey" irony)

Acorn


----------



## winchable (9 Nov 2004)

Well he and his wife never had particularly normal relations.
He was stuck in his compound while she flaunted about Paris in a BMW in fashionable clothes while he is seen as having stuck with Palestine.
She's not a Palestinian (French I believe)
The Palestinian community isn't entirely convinced that Abu Mazen or any of this contemporaries and possible successors are good for Palestine so when this woman who basically abandoned Yasser(nothing is more sacred than the bond between husband and wife in many ways) to his tormentors picks up his cause at his death bed....
She was already terribly unpopular anyhow, seen as some kind of Gaza Strip Socialite when she rarely visited, flaunting her wealth in the face of such poverty.
She's doing nothing to help essentially.
For a people who are deeply suspicious of the possible successors who "stuck with" Palestine to have to put up with her blocking access to Arafat is a strain on an already strenuous situation. 
She says she is looking out for Abu Ammar but where was she for the last 2 years? Living off a 100,000$ a month allowance in Paris.

She is either vying for Arafats alleged money or she is trying to make more war.

Either way I don't particularly like what shes doing, and a great many Palestinians don't either.


----------



## Acorn (9 Nov 2004)

OK, now I know. I suspect she's hoping to get the secret account numbers before abu Mazen et. al. get it out of him. The accounts stand at what? About $12 billion?

Acorn


----------



## winchable (9 Nov 2004)

Pennies I'd imagine.
They're backed by enough oil-rich countries they mightn't be too worried about Arafats personal wealthy, i know in particular Qureia is a rich lad himself.
I think they're more worried that she'll attempt to carry on with Arafats personal agenda and try and gain some kind of real power.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Nov 2004)

When you think about it, all they would have to do is walk in......*quick smoke*.....walk out and say Yasser said that we are to take his spot/ wealth  and unless she had the "secret access" , she would be down the road kickin' stones.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (9 Nov 2004)

Maybe she's just afraid that the PA might claim some of his multibillion dollar estate and/or stop the $100,000/month payment she's been getting for, uh, appearing at fashion shows 'n' stuff ...


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Nov 2004)

I saw one article today suggesting he is personally worth 1Billion dollars, all squirrelled away in various accounts all over the world and all his account numbers were held in his head.

Not a good place to have them stored if you are in a coma or suffer a stroke.

The PLO may end up having to go to the CIA to find out where all the money is.

The Universe is such and ironic place.

Cheers.

Article in today's National Post....


----------



## winchable (9 Nov 2004)

I saw the same quote Kirkhill, isn't that disgusting.
To think he could have done so much more than just squirrel it away.

The world isn't just ironic it's sick.

To add again, there are a number of conflicting reports regarding Abu Ammars health now some saying he is already dead others saying he is hours from death others talking about a brain hemmorage. I won't bother posting them because there's too many different agencies posting different things. I figured it was notable just because they've been saying there's no change in his condition up until recently today.

Ambiguous but indicative of the situation:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6761895


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (9 Nov 2004)

Che, that link doesn't seem to work ... "no longer available"

This is from last year:

 ... Europe -- the PA's main financial backer -- wants to know what happened to the $US5.5 billion in international aid that has flowed in Arafat's direction since the PA was established in 1994 

The West Bank war horse's image is not helped when publications such as Forbes magazine feature the 74-year-old prominently on its list of most wealthy "King, Queens and Despots".

Forbes calculates that Arafat, who comes in sixth behind Queen Elizabeth II, has a net worth of $US300billion. Some Israelis believe Arafat's personal wealth may be as much as $US11 billion, although in testimony to the Knesset last year Israel's chief of military intelligence Aharon Zeevi listed his personal assets at more than $US1.3 billion.  <http://www.mafhoum.com/press6/171E19.htm>

I've read elsewhere that one of the PLO's (or PA's) former finance guy, estimated control of the PA to be worth another $6-or-so billion USD.

I think was a huge mistake to allow Arafat to continue to 'represent' the Palestinians ...


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Nov 2004)

Che,

this is NOT to be contentious, but could it not be argued that it was not in Abu Ammar's interests, nor the PA/PLO's interest to do anything with the money other than put it away.  One of their greatest weapons was the discontent of the Palestinians, surely.  If the Palestinians had seen their circumstances improve as a result of foreign aid, especially US aid, if they had seen stores, farms and factories open, the airport and the port open and start employing people, would the community at large have been able to sustain the level of rage it has over a period of 60 years.  In other words do prosperous peoples revolt?  Not the odd individual but the main body?

Conversely, if the community now sees that Arafat and his cronies, including people he associated with like Hezbollah, will they be able to trust any of those groups in power?  Will those groups continue to be able to dominate the society by force of arms and intimidation?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (9 Nov 2004)

Kirkhill, it sounds like you are describing the Oil-for-Food disaster in Iraq ...

Anyway, the BBC is reporting that Arafat has a brain haemorrhage: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3994667.stm


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Nov 2004)

Good point John,  hadn't considered that angle.


----------



## winchable (9 Nov 2004)

Well I do agree with you in some resepects kirkhill but I think in a Hegelian sense (Corrrect me if I'm totally bastardizing the philosophy) Arafat was neccessary.

I doubt they would have been much better off had he let the money he was skimming(?) off the top flow through. I would wager he'd probably taken years of a little cash here and there and of course he's got buddies all over Arabia, rich buddies who would've sent him gifts.

Or maybe he's just that thrify ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Nov 2004)

> Or maybe he's just that thrify



Are you trying to suggest that Arafat was Scots?  Oh now you have take racial stereotyping to new lows. 

As to the Hegelian reference perhaps you could clue me in,  I don't know much about him other than what that bunch of Bruces from Australia taught me when they were talking about Aristotle and his bottle.  (Sorry couldn't resist - love Monty Python).  Seriously though could you explain yourself a bit clearer for me?

Cheers.


----------



## winchable (9 Nov 2004)

You know I'm not even sure I'm thinking of the right philosophy Kirkhill, it was just the first one that came to my head. I hate philosophy for the most part, so it's all kind of muddled together.
Predetermined movement of things, there are no chance occurences, so Arafats not good but he's a part of the larger picture moving towards an end...

Not entirely Hegelian...
You know what, I have no idea.

And now back to Arafat. ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Nov 2004)

And on Arafat I see that the bidding on his wealth has gone through 4 billion to 10 billion.  Any takers on 20?....Going Once....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Nov 2004)

CBC just reported on the 11 'o clock news he died.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Nov 2004)

From CNN,
Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat died early Thursday at a French military hospital where he was being treated for a blood disorder, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said. Arafat, 75, was taken to the suburban Paris hospital nearly two weeks ago for treatment. He had been on a respirator since slipping into a coma November 3. A hospital spokesman said he died at 9:30 p.m. Wednesday ET.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Nov 2004)

CNN just updated,

Wednesday, November 10, 2004 Posted: 11:59 PM EST (0459 GMT)


PARIS, France (CNN) -- Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, 75, the leader who passionately sought a homeland for his people but was seen by many Israelis as a ruthless terrorist and a roadblock to peace, died early Thursday in Paris.

Arafat had been sick with an unknown illness that had been variously described as the flu, a stomach virus or gallstones. He flew to Paris nearly two weeks ago seeking medical treatment and was hospitalized with what Palestinian officials said was a blood disorder.

He had been on a respirator since slipping into a coma November 3.

A hospital spokesman said he died at 3:30 a.m. Thursday (9:30 p.m. Wednesday ET).

Arafat's body will be taken from France to Cairo, where the Egyptian government will host a state funeral for him, Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said.

He will be buried outside the Palestinian Authority headquarters compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah -- a resting place Erakat called temporary.

"One day, we will have our own independent state with east Jerusalem as its capital," Erakat said.

Israel forbade Arafat's burial in Jerusalem, which it has controlled since 1967.

For five decades, Arafat -- adorned with his trademark checkered kaffiyeh -- was the most prominent face of Palestinian opposition to Israel and the push for a Palestinian state, first as the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which carried out attacks against Israeli targets, and later as the leader of the quasi-governmental Palestinian Authority after parts of the West Bank and Gaza were returned to Palestinian control.

His death leaves no clear immediate successor in the often fractious world of Palestinian politics.

Under the Palestinian Authority's basic law, the speaker of the Palestinian parliament, Rawhi Fattuh, will replace Arafat as Palestinian Authority president on an interim basis, and elections are to be held within 60 days.

During Arafat's illness, Prime Minister Ahmed Qorei has been in charge of the Palestinian Authority, while former Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has led the Palestine Liberation Organization's executive committee.

The president holds office for five years and can stand for re-election once.

Arafat was first elected head of the PLO in 1969, and by 1974, Arab leaders recognized the group as "the sole legitimate representative" of the Palestinian people.

In 1994, Arafat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, along with Israeli leaders Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres, for their work on the Oslo accords, seen at the time as a breakthrough toward an independent Palestinian state and a permanent peace with Israel. Yet a decade later, Arafat died without seeing his dream of a Palestinian homeland come true.

At a summit at Camp David, Maryland, in 2000, Arafat decided to turn down a U.S.-brokered deal offering Palestinians control of most of the occupied Palestinian territory. Three months later, intense fighting broke out between Palestinians and the Israeli army.

Israel -- in retaliation for increased terrorist attacks on Israeli civilian targets -- severely restricted Arafat's movements, confining him to his West Bank compound in Ramallah in December 2001.

Continuing violence, along with corruption and economic problems, raised questions at home and abroad about Arafat's ability to lead the Palestinian Authority.

In 2003, under pressure from the United States and members of his own Cabinet, Arafat appointed Abbas to the new position of prime minister, a move designed to decentralize power. But Abbas resigned less than six months later, saying he didn't have enough support to do the job.

In July, Arafat announced a program designed to unify security forces and tackle corruption after his frustrated second prime minister, Qorei, also tried to resign.

Arafat is survived by his wife, Suha Tawil, whom he married in 1991, and their daughter, Zahwa, who was born in 1995.


----------



## KevinB (11 Nov 2004)

Wonder if they will admit it was AIDS now?


----------



## Infanteer (11 Nov 2004)

Good riddance.


----------



## JasonH (11 Nov 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Good riddance.


----------



## winchable (11 Nov 2004)

Well it was only a matter of time.
I'm having supper with my Palestinian friends tommorw and I'll get a good sense of the reaction there, but I'll hazard a guess that it won't be his death that will be the issue, it will be who is succeeding him.

I think it wil be a mix of positive and negative.
Abu Ammar was seen as the man who brought the issue to the worldfront, and his charisma (yeah he had some) was something that Abu Mazen and his ilk lacked.
But at the same time his mistakes are many and well publicized, but in reality, whos aren't?

Terrorist? Well, I won't debate the label and both sides have had their share of "terrorists"
In my eyes human suffering is human suffering regardless of race, nationality or past history.

Alhamduallah his suffering is over and the world can stop revelling in his death and his mistakes and move towards peace in the middle east. (Yeah it rhymes)


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Nov 2004)

Hopefully this is an opportunity seized by all parties Che.

Peace to you and your Palestinian mates.


----------



## Bert (12 Nov 2004)

Another Stratfor special.  Arafat has an interesting history and the legacy
of it is uncertain.  I wonder what will come of it.




The Death of Arafat
November 11, 2004  2359 GMT

By George Friedman

That Yasser Arafat's death marks the end of an era is so obvious that it
hardly bears saying. The nature of the era that is ending and the nature of
the era that is coming, on the other hand, do bear discussing. That speaks
not only to the Arab-Israeli conflict but to the evolution of the Arab world
in general.

In order to understand Arafat's life, it is essential to understand the
concept "Arab," and to understand its tension with the concept "Muslim," at
least as Arafat lived it out. In general, ethnic Arabs populate North Africa
and the area between the Mediterranean and Iran, and between Yemen and
Turkey. This is the Arab world. It is a world that is generally -- but far
from exclusively -- Muslim, although the Muslim world stretches far beyond
the Arab world.

To understand Arafat's life, it is much more important to understand the Arab
impulse than to understand the Muslim impulse. Arafat belonged to that
generation of Arab who visualized the emergence of a single Arab nation,
encapsulating all of the religious groups in the Arab world, and one that was
essentially secular in nature. This vision did not originate with Arafat but
with his primary patron, Gamal Abdul Nasser, the founder of modern Egypt and
of the idea of a United Arab Republic. No sense can be made of Arafat's life
without first understanding Nasser's.

Nasser was born into an Egypt that was ruled by a weak and corrupt monarchy
and effectively dominated by Britain. He became an officer in the Egyptian
army and fought competently against the Israelis in the 1948 war. He emerged
from that war committed to two principles: The first was recovering Egyptian
independence fully; the second was making Egypt a modern, industrial state.
Taking his bearing from Kamal Ataturk, who founded the modern Turkish state,
Nasser saw the military as the most modern institution in Egypt, and
therefore the instrument to achieve both independence and modernization. This
was the foundation of the Egyptian revolution.

Nasser was personally a practicing Muslim of sorts -- he attended mosque --
but he did not see himself as leading an Islamic revolution at all. For
example, he placed numerous Coptic Christians in important government
positions. For Arafat, the overriding principle was not Islam, but Arabism.
Nasser dreamed of uniting the Arabs in a single entity, whose capital would
be Cairo. He believed that until there was a United Arab Republic, the Arabs
would remain the victims of foreign imperialism.

Nasser saw his prime antagonists as the traditional monarchies of the Arab
world. Throughout his rule, Nasser tried to foment revolutions, led by the
military, that would topple these monarchies. Nasserite or near-Nasserite
revolutions toppled Iraqi, Syrian and Libyan monarchies. Throughout his rule,
he tried to bring down the Jordanian, Saudi and other Persian Gulf regimes.
This was the constant conflict that overlaid the Arab world from the 1950s
until the death of Nasser and the rise of Anwar Sadat.

Geopolitics aligned Nasser's ambitions with the Soviet Union. Nasser was a
socialist but never a Marxist. Nevertheless, as he confronted the United
States and threatened American allies among the conservative monarchies, he
grew both vulnerable to the United States and badly in need of a geopolitical
patron. The Soviets were also interested in limiting American power and saw
Nasser as a natural ally, particularly because of his confrontation with the
monarchies.

Nasser's view of Israel was that it represented the intrusion of British
imperialism into the Arab world, and that the conservative monarchies,
particularly Jordan, were complicit in its creation. For Nasser, the
destruction of Israel had several uses. First, it was a unifying point for
Arab nationalism. Second, it provided a tool with which to prod and confront
the monarchies that tended to shy away from confrontation. Third, it allowed
for the further modernization of the Egyptian military -- and therefore of
Egypt -- by enticing a flow of technology from the Soviet Union to Egypt.
Nasser both opposed the existence of Israel and saw its existence as a useful
tool in his general project.

It is important to understand that for Nasser, Israel was not a Palestinian
problem but an Arab problem. In his view, the particular Arab nationalisms
were the problem, not the solution. Adding another Arab nationalism --
Palestinian -- to the mix was not in his interest. The Zionist injustice was
against the Arab nation and not against the Palestinians as a particular
nation. Nasser was not alone in this view. The Syrians saw Palestine as a
district of Syria, stolen by the British and French. They saw the Zionists as
oppressors, but against the Syrian nation. The Jordanians, who held the West
Bank, saw the West Bank as part of the Jordanian nation and, by extension,
the rest of Palestine as a district of Jordan. Until the 1967 war, the Arab
world was publicly and formally united in opposing the existence of Israel,
but much less united on what would replace Israel after it was destroyed. The
least likely candidate was an independent Palestinian state.

Prior to 1967, Nasser sponsored the creation of the Palestine Liberation
Organization under the leadership of Ahmed al Shukairi. It was an entirely
ineffective organization that created a unit that fought under Egyptian
command. Since 1967 was a disaster for Nasser, "fought" is a very loose term.
The PLO was kept under tight control, careful avoiding the question of
nationhood and focusing on the destruction of Israel.

After the 1967 war, the young leader of the PLO's Fatah faction took control
of the organization. Yasser Arafat was a creature of Nasser, politically and
intellectually. He was an Arabist. He was a modernizer. He was a secularist.
He was aligned with the Soviets. He was anti-American. Arafat faced two
disparate questions in 1967. First, it was clear that the Arabs would not
defeat Israel in a war, probably in his lifetime; what, therefore, was to be
done to destroy Israel? Second, if the only goal was to destroy the Israelis,
and if that was not to happen anytime soon, then what was to become of the
Palestinians? Arafat posed the question more radically: Granted that
Palestinians were part of the Arab revolution, did they have a separate
identity of their own, as did Egyptians or Libyans? Were they simply Syrians
or Jordanians? Who were they?

Asserting Palestinian nationalism was not easy in 1967, because of the Arabs
themselves. The Syrians did not easily recognize their independence and
sponsored their own Palestinian group, loyal to Syria. The Jordanians could
not recognize the Palestinians as separate, as their own claim to power even
east of the Jordan would be questionable, let alone their claims to the West
Bank. The Egyptians were uneasy with the rise of another Arab nationalism.

Simultaneously, the growth of a radical and homeless Palestinian movement
terrified the monarchies. Arafat knew that no war would defeat the Israelis.
His view was that a two-tiered approach was best. On one level, the PLO would
make the claim on behalf of the Palestinian people, for the right to
statehood on the world stage. On the other hand, the Palestinians would use
small-scale paramilitary operations against soft targets -- terrorism -- to
increase the cost throughout the world of ignoring the Palestinians.

The Soviets were delighted with this strategy, and their national
intelligence services moved to facilitate it by providing training and
logistics. A terror campaign against Israel's supporters would be a terror
campaign against Europe and the United States. The Soviets were delighted by
anything that caused pain and destabilized the West. The cost to the Soviets
of underwriting Palestinian operations, either directly or through various
Eastern European or Arab intelligence services, was negligible. Arafat became
a revolutionary aligned with the Soviets.

There were two operational principles. The first was that Arafat himself
should appear as the political wing of the movement, able to serve as an
untainted spokesman for Palestinian rights. The second was that the groups
that carried out the covert operations should remain complex and murky.
Plausible deniability combined with unpredictability was the key.

Arafat created an independent covert capability that allowed him to make a
radical assertion: that there was an independent Palestinian people as
distinct as any other Arab nation. Terrorist operations gave Arafat the
leverage to assert that Palestine should take its place in the Arab world in
its own right.

If Palestine was a separate nation, then what was Jordan? The Ha-shemite
kingdom were Bedouins driven out of Arabia. The majority of the population
were not Bedouin, but had their roots in the west - hence, they were
Palestinians. If there was a Palestinian nation, then why were they being
ruled by Bedouins from Arabia? In September 1970, Arafat made his move.
Combining a series of hijackings of Western airliners with a Palestinian
rising in Jordan, Arafat attempted to seize control of Jordan. He failed, and
thousands of Palestinians were slaughtered by Hashemite and Pakistani
mercenaries. (Coincidentally, the military unit dispatched to Jordan was led
by then-Brigadier Zia-ul-Haq, who later ruled Pakistan from 1977 to 1988 as a
military dictator.)

Arafat's logic was impeccable. His military capability was less than perfect.

Arafat created a new group -- Black September -- that was assigned the task
of waging a covert war against the Israelis and the West. The greatest
action, the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972,
defined the next generation. Israel launched a counter-operation to destroy
Black September, and the pattern of terrorism and counter-terrorism swirling
around the globe was set. The PLO was embedded in a network of terrorist
groups sponsored by the Soviets that ranged from Japan to Italy. The Israelis
became part of a multinational counter-attack. Neither side could score a
definitive victory.

But Arafat won the major victory. Nations are frequently born of battle, and
the battles that began in 1970 and raged until the mid-1990s established an
indelible principle -- there is now, if there was not before, a nation called
Palestine. This was critical, because as Nasser died and his heritage was
discarded by Anwar Sadat, the principle of the Arab nation was lost. It was
only through the autonomous concept of Palestinian nationalism that Arafat
and the PLO could survive.

And this was Arafat's fatal crisis. He had established the principle of
Palestine, but what he had failed to define was what that Palestinian nation
meant and what it wanted. The latter was the critical point. Arafat's
strategy was to appear the statesman restraining uncontrollable radicals. He
understood that he needed Western support to get a state, and he used this
role superbly. He appeared moderate and malleable in English, radical and
intractable in Arabic. This was his insoluble dilemma.

Arafat led a nation that had no common understanding of their goal. There
were those who wanted to recover a part of Palestine and be content. There
were those who wanted to recover part of Palestine and use it as a base of
operations to retake the rest. There were those who would accept no
intermediate deal but wanted to destroy Israel. Arafat's fatal problem was
that in the course of creating the Palestinian nation, he had convinced all
three factions that he stood with them.

Like many politicians, Arafat had made too many deals. He had successfully
persuaded the West that (a) he genuinely wanted a compromise and (b) that he
could restrain terrorism. But he had also persuaded Palestinians that any
deal was merely temporary, and others that he wouldn't accept any deal. By
the time of the Oslo accords, Arafat was so tied up in knots that he could
not longer speak for the nation he created. More precisely, the Palestinians
were so divided that no one could negotiate on their behalf, confident in his
authority. Arafat kept his position by sacrificing his power.

By the 1990s, the space left by the demise of pan-Arabism had been taken by
the rise of Islamist religiosity. Hamas, representing the view that there is
a Palestinian nation but that it should be understood as part of the Islamic
world under Islamic law, had become the most vibrant part of the Palestinian
polity. Nothing was more alien from Arafat's thinking than Hamas. It ran
counter to everything he had learned from Nasser.

However -- and this is Arafat's tragedy -- by the time Hamas emerged as a
power, he had lost the ability to believe in anything but the concept of the
Palestinians and his place as its leader. As Hamas rose, Arafat became
entirely tactical. His goal was to retain position if not power, and toward
that end, he would do what was needed. A lifetime of tactics had destroyed
all strategy.

His death in Paris was a farce of family and courtiers. It fitted the end he
had created, because his last years were lived in a round of clever maneuvers
leading nowhere. The Palestinians are left now without strategy, only
tactics. There is no one who can speak for the Palestinians and be listened
to as authoritative. He created the Palestinian nation and utterly disrupted
the Palestinian state. He left a clear concept on the one hand, a chaos on
the other.

It is interesting to wonder what would have happened if Arafat had won in
Jordan in 1970, while Nasser was still alive. But that wasn't going to
happen, because Arafat's fatal weakness was visible even then. The concept
was clear -- but instead of meticulously planning a rising, Arafat
improvised, playing politics within the PLO when he should have been managing
combat operations. The chaos and failure that marked Black September became
emblematic of his life.

Arafat succeeded in one thing, and perhaps that is enough -- he created the
Palestinian nation against all enemies, Arab and non-Arab. The rest was the
endless failure of pure improvisation.

(c) 2004 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.stratfor.com


----------



## jmacleod (12 Nov 2004)

Arafat's funeral supported by the Egyptian Air Force is interesting. Egypt had 61 S-61 "Sea King"
helicopters in inventory two or three years ago - it looks like Arafat's last flight was in a "Sea King"
which was the cover story in today's Jerusalem Post Israel. There was talk of overhaul of these
aircraft by IMP Aerospace Halifax International Airport N.S. at one time, but I think the contract
eventually went to Pakistan. MacLeod


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Nov 2004)

Well, this didn't take long, me thinks its going to be a long two weeks in Gaza.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041114/D86BS6T00.html

Abbas Escapes Gaza Shooting Unharmed


Nov 14, 3:43 PM (ET)

By IBRAHIM BARZAK

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - Mahmoud Abbas, the temporary successor to Yasser Arafat, escaped unharmed Sunday when militants firing assault rifles burst into a mourning tent for the deceased Palestinian leader, killing two security guards and wounding six other people.

The shooting raised grave concerns about a violent power struggle in the post-Arafat era. Some of the gunmen shouted slogans calling Abbas, a moderate who has spoken out against violence, an agent of the United States.

The bursts of gunfire came just hours after Palestinian officials set Jan. 9 as the date for elections to choose a new leader - the first vote in nine years.

The temporary Palestinian leadership, headed by Abbas, has been trying to send a message of unity since Arafat's death Thursday. Arafat's responsibilities were divided among several leaders, and officials held talks with rival factions in Arafat's Fatah movement and the militant opposition groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

However, those rivalries burst into the open minutes after Abbas, the new PLO chief, entered the Gaza City mourning tent, where some 10,000 people - including about 3,000 armed men, most of them police officers - gathered Sunday evening. Abbas, accompanied by Gaza strongman Mohammed Dahlan and surrounded by security guards, shook hands with mourners.

Moments later, a group of at least 20 gunmen barged into the tent shouting, "Abbas and Dahlan are agents for the Americans!"

Gunfire then popped through the tent. It appears most of the shots were fired in the air - the casualty toll likely would have been far higher had the gunmen taken aim at the large crowd.

Abbas' bodyguards hustled him into a corner as frightened mourners scrambled over plastic chairs to flee. Abbas was taken to Palestinian headquarters.

Speaking to reporters, Abbas tried to play down the incident.

"While we were receiving condolences, a huge crowd gathered there and then random shooting broke out, but not in my direction," he said.

Abbas said he did not hear any slogans against him and planned to continue talks with rival Palestinian factions. Abbas has tried in the past, as prime minister, to persuade militants to halt attacks on Israel.

However, militants signaled Sunday they were not interested in a cease-fire. In a Gaza City parade, masked militants unveiled a new rocket, which they claimed had an extended range that could reach the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon. The long, green "Al-Yasser 1" rocket, named after Arafat, was shown to a cheering crowd as Palestinian security looked on.

Sunday's shooting raised questions about the ability of the Palestinians to carry out their election peacefully.

Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, is widely expected to run for Palestinian Authority president. However, victory is far from certain. None of the likely candidates, including Abbas, has the stature of Arafat, and many Palestinians consider Abbas' generation of politicians to be tainted by corruption and out of touch with the masses.

"They realize very clearly that without a popular mandate, they can't make any important decisions," said Mouin Rabbani, senior Middle East analyst with the International Crisis Group in Amman, Jordan.

Abbas is expected to be a nominee of Arafat's dominant Fatah movement, but not necessarily the only one. He told the Arab satellite TV station Al Jazeera that Fatah would soon choose a candidate.

Marwan Barghouti, a leader of the Palestinian uprising who is jailed by Israel, plans to run, according to a person close to him. In recent opinion polls, Barghouti emerged as the most popular politician after Arafat.

Abdel Sattar Qassem, a political science professor and political outsider, said he plans to run as an independent candidate. Qassem, a leading Arafat critic, said his campaign would focus on cleaning up corruption in the Palestinian Authority.

The largest opposition group, Hamas, also is considering whether to field a candidate.

Who emerges as the winner could largely depend on Israel and whether Abbas can produce results during the next two months.

Israeli officials say privately they would like to bolster Abbas, but fear any public embrace of him will weaken his standing.

Palestinian officials called for international pressure on Israel to ease conditions in Palestinian areas to permit the vote to go smoothly. They called for a withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian population centers and said residents of disputed east Jerusalem must participate.

Israel has barred most residents in east Jerusalem from registering to vote. Many Israelis fear that allowing the city's 228,000 Arab residents to vote in a such a ballot would strengthen Palestinian claims to the city.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon signaled flexibility on the matter Sunday, telling his Cabinet he would not rule out the possibility of allowing east Jerusalem Palestinians to vote, meeting participants said. No decisions were made.

Israeli security sources said on condition of anonymity they were considering turning over security responsibility in Gaza and West Bank cities to Palestinian forces. They gave no details on the timing.

U.S. Embassy spokesman Paul Patin said Washington would like Israel to help ensure that the Palestinian elections go smoothly. Patin declined to say whether the United States was pushing for specific goodwill gestures.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, meanwhile, said he believes President Bush, who kept his distance during his first term, plans to get more involved in the Mideast conflict.

"There was a very powerful, confident expression of his desire to get this done," Blair said Sunday. "You aren't going to get that progress unless we can build democratic institutions on the Palestinian side."


----------



## winchable (14 Nov 2004)

Abu Mazen is nooot as popular a man as many would like to think.
He's not seen as being a strong leader, which is quite important, even moreso than issues.
The successor will have to be a little more between Abbas and Arafat.

Try:
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=620886&section=news


----------

