Implications of Yasser Arafat's death

[eyrei]

This thread is to discuss the ramifications of the death of the Palestinian leader, which is an important topic. It is not to state your glee at his death, and the any person to do so will be banned. You may say why you think it is a good thing that the Palestinians have new leadership, but without that substantiation, a ban will be enforced. Making statements like "Good riddance because he was a terrorist." is not exceptable. You will have a reasonable and mature discussion, or this thread will be closed like the last one.

 

[Rhymes]

I always thought that Mr. Arafat was a great man, a man on wich the palestinians could look up to, he was a natural leader.

Even though I haven't seen the complete list of potential successors, I dont think that the next one will be able to keep the palestinians strong and united ( without impling that they were under Arafat's). This might just be the beggining of the end for Palestine.

I think that their survival chances lies in the hands of a submissive leader that will concede "victory" to Israel, and after a moment of civil resistance.

 

[stratego]

Arafat is a well known and maybe even well respected leader in the international community. I foresee an increase in violence in the next month as other countries would try to test the ability of the new leader.

 

[AVN]

I think not much will change in the current Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Arafat had some authority in Palestine (although several fractions didn't follow his directives), which his successor probably will not get.

A lot of Palestinians have too much (understandable) hate towards Israel so I'm afraid this conflict will not be solved soon

 

[Bigfoot]

My guess is that the cycle of violence between Palestinians and Israel will continue amd intensify until there is a clear successor -- it serves the purposes of the more militant elements of the Palestinian leadership. Once there is a successor to Arafat then there may yet be a chance for a peaceful resolution.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The optimist interpretation is that it removes an excuse for refusing negotiation for the Israelis and at the same time, hopefully, gets us a more compromise-willing Pal leadership. It could be a starting point for renewed progress.

The pessimist one says it will lead to intra-Palestinian fighting, which Israel will use as excuse for refusing to talk, with ever-increasing poverty in the territories as a the result and no progress towards a solution.

In either case, I expect interesting times.

 

[Elgalad]

This thread is to discuss the ramifications of the death of the Palestinian leader, which is an important topic. It is not to state your glee at his death, and the any person to do so will be banned. You may say why you think it is a good thing that the Palestinians have new leadership, but without that substantiation, a ban will be enforced. Making statements like "Good riddance because he was a terrorist." is not exceptable. You will have a reasonable and mature discussion, or this thread will be closed like the last one.

Eyrei, it has been stated numerous times on nearly every media source over the last few days that Yasser Arafat was a roadblock to the peace process. With his passing, that roadblock has ostensibly been removed. It is not wrong to celebrate the possibility that Peace may finally become possible between the Israelis and the Palestinians because this man has died.

I do not take pleasure in the fact that this man is dead. But I Do revel in the inevitable future that will result from it: A true and lasting Peace.

I offer condolences to the family of Yasser Arafat and his followers. I will never praise what he did while he was alive, because the facts remain incontrovertible ~ he Was a terrorist and a supporter of Terrorism. Even so, he was a man like any other, and deserving of respect for his devotion, if not his ideals.


-Elgalad

 

[luiz]

Arafat was definately an obstacle to the peace proccess. Refusing the deal with Ehud Barak, that would grant palestinians 95% of the claimed land, was a crime against his people.

His death opens the door for more moderate and realistics palestnian leadership, like Abu Mazen.

Furthermore, the fact that in the past Arafat commited hideous acts of terrorism cannot be overlooked. It's natural that the israelis were not very comfortable negotiating with him.

 

[Yaype]

No one should revel in another's death, but if Arafat's death is what it takes for peace in the Middle East, then he will have served a great purpose.

I think it comes down to who takes control now. Hopefully, elections take place in 60 days without a problem, and at that time, a moderate leader who wants peace will be chosen. If somebody more radical is chosen, then I see no way out of the current cycle of violence currently ongoing.

 

[Evie]

I don't see it having much if any impact. Arafat may have been a roadblock to the peace process - he probably indeed was - but there are roadblock to the peace process plenty apiece on every sides - roadblocks named Netanyahu, the Islamic Jihad, the Hamas, Jerusalem...Even if an agreement is reached, it's entirely too likely it would fail to bring any lasting peace thanks to the above-mentioned factors (and others I forgot, most likely).

Peace in our time seems little more than a faint dream, right now. But I'll keep hoping.

 

[yoshi]

Refusing the deal with Ehud Barak, that would grant palestinians 95% of the claimed land, was a crime against his people.

Indeed, but now there is no excuse: if another such deal is presented, the PA had better take it. And, as has already been said, the problem is now that with Arafat out of the picture, things will probably get a lot hairier. And considering his record up to now, Sharon probably won't be doing the PA any favors, thus a deal like that one will probably not present itself.

If Sharon's administration does not offer another deal (i.e. things have not chaged that much except for an increase in Isreali policy in the Palestinian territories so this would be quite possible), the blame for Palestinian suffering can then be put exclusively on Sharon. Such a deal would be the only thing to prevent things from getting completely out of control now.

 

[Mario Feldberg]

Arafat was a uniting figure for the "Palestinians". His death will weaken the "Palestinians" just like the removal of Saddam Hussein (he used to send a big check to every suicide bomber) weakened them. This doesn't mean peace but it means less terrorism against Israel.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I do not take pleasure in the fact that this man is dead. But I Do revel in the inevitable future that will result from it: A true and lasting Peace.

Wish I shared your faith.

 

[Rhymes]

Arafat was a uniting figure for the "Palestinians". His death will weaken the "Palestinians" just like the removal of Saddam Hussein (he used to send a big check to every suicide bomber) weakened them. This doesn't mean peace but it means less terrorism against Israel.

I really dont think Arafat had anything to do with terrorist attacks against Israel, I'de rather say he didn't do anything to stop them, and neither will the next leader, I really wouldn't expect them to go down untill an agreement of some sort is created between the 2 nations, without regards to who the palestinian leader is, or to who the Israelite president is.

 

[Immortal]

I don't agree Eyrei, I remember when STrom Thurmond died how many people were posting happily about his death without a single warning. And he had nothing to do with terrorism, he was simply a politician who happened to be segregationalist.

If people are allowed to be happy with the death of Strom Thurmond, why can't we be happy with the death of a terrorist?

 

[Norlamand]

The biggest implication is that there is, at long last, a chance at making meaningful progress towards peace between Israel and the Palestinian people.....

 

[Rhymes]

Arafat did win the nobel prize for peace back in 1994 along with shimon perez and Yitzhak Rabin for their effort toward peace, I dont really get all the anger directed towards him since a couple of years because he failed to preserve the peace of which he was the instigator.

I am of those who think he was a great man and deserve some respect.

 

[luiz]

Arafat did win the nobel prize for peace back in 1994 along with shimon perez and Yitzhak Rabin for their effort toward peace, I dont really get all the anger directed towards him since a couple of years because he failed to preserve the peace of which he was the instigator.

I am of those who think he was a great man and deserve some respect.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but Arafat organised terrorit attacks against Jewish civilians untill the 80's, when he (supposedely) abandoned terrorism. He had plenty of blood in his hands.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Honestly, I'm finding it hard to believe all this animosity against Arafat is just cause he was a killer. The idea that it's because he was a killer on the wrong side keeps suggesting itself.

 

[Rhymes]

I'm not sure if you're aware, but Arafat organised terrorit attacks against Jewish civilians untill the 80's, when he (supposedely) abandoned terrorism. He had plenty of blood in his hands.

Actually I haven't heard about those..... and thats why i'm being a bit sceptical about it. Tell me what you know.

Even if it is true, maybe my respect towards him will lower, but I'll still believe he has done great achievments trhough his life.